"In stead thereof scoffing Seurilitie, And scornfull Follie with contempt is crept, Without regard or due Decorum kept: Large streames of honnie and sweete Nectar flowe, Which dare their follies forth so rashlie throwe, later in life he may have become acquainted with Shakespeare. An Edmund Spenser unquestionably dwelt at Kingsbury, in Warwickshire, in 1569, which was the year when the author of "The Faerie Queene" went to Cambridge, and was admitted a sizer at Pembroke college. This Edmund Spenser may possibly have been the father of the poet, (whose Christian name is no where recorded) and if it were the one or the other, it seems to afford a link of connection, however slight, between Spenser The most striking of these lines, with reference and Shakespeare, of which we have had no previous to our present inquiry, is, "Our pleasant Willy, ah! is dead of late;" and hence, if it stood alone, we might infer that Willy, whoever he might be, was actually dead; but the latter part of the third stanza we have quoted shows us in what sense the word "dead" is to be understood: Willy was "dead" as far as regarded the admirable dramatic talents he had already displayed, which had enabled him, even before 1591, to outstrip all living rivalry, and to afford the most certain indications of the still greater things Spenser saw he would accomplish: he was dead," because he 66 "Doth rather choose to sit in idle Cell, Than so himselfe to mockerie to sell." It is to be borne in mind that these stanzas, and six others, are put into the mouth of Thalia, whose lamentation on the degeneracy of the stage, especially in comedy, follows those of Calliope and Melpomene. Rowe, under the impression that the whole passage referred to Shakespeare, introduced it into his "Life," in his first edition of 1709, but silently withdrew it in his second edition of 1714: his reason, perhaps, was that he did not see how, before 1591, Shakespeare could have shown that he merited the character given of him and his productions "And he the man, whom Nature selfe had made knowledge. Spenser was at least eleven years older than Shakespeare, but their early residence in the same part of the kingdom may have given rise to an intimacy afterwards. Perhaps we are disposed to lay too much stress upon a mere coincidence of names; but we may be forgiven for clinging to the conjecture that the greatest romantic poet of this country was upon terms of friendship and cordiality with the greatest dramatist of the world. If the evidence upon this point were even more scanty, we should be convinced that by "our pleasant Willy," Spenser meant William Shakespeare, by the fact that such a character as he gives could belong to no other dramatist of the time. Greene can have no pretensions to it, nor Lodge, nor Kyd, nor Peele; Marlowe had never touched comedy: but if these have no title to the praise that they had mocked. nature and imitated truth, the claim put in by Malone for Lyly is little short of absurd. Lyly was, beyond dispute, the most artificial and affected writer of his day: his dramas have nothing like nature or truth in them; and if it could be established that Spenser and Lyly were on the most intimate footing, even the exaggerate admiration of the fondest friendship could hardly have carried Spenser to the extreme to which he has gone in his "Tears of the Muses." It is not necessary to enter farther into this part of the question, because, we think, it is now established that Spenser's lines might apply to Shakespeare as regards the date of their publication, and indisputably applied with most felicitous exactness to the works he has left behind him. With regard to the lines which state, that Willy "Doth rather choose to sit in idle Cell, Than so himselfe to mockerie to sell," To mock her selfe, and Truth to imitate." Spenser knew what the object of his eulogy was capable of doing, as well, perhaps, as what he had done; and we have established that more than a year before the publication of these lines, Shakespeare had risen to be a distinguished member of the Lord Chamberlain's company, and a sharer in the undertaking at the Blackfriars. Although we feel we have already shown that in 1589 there must have assured that he had not composed any of his great-been some compulsory cessation of theatrical perest works before 1591, he may have done much, formances, which affected not only offending but unbesides what has come down to us, amply to warrant Spenser in applauding him beyond all his the- offending companies: hence the certificate, or more atrical contemporaries. We are persuaded that properly remonstrance, of the sixteen sharers in the Shakespeare, early in his theatrical life, must have Blackfriars. And although the public companies (after the completion of some inquiries by commissionwritten much, in the way of revivals, alterations, or their vocation, there can be no doubt that there was ers specially appointed) were allowed again to follow joint productions with other poets, which has been forever lost. We here, as before, conclude that none of his greatest original dramatic productions had come from his pen; but if in 1591 he had only brought out "The Two Gentlemen of Verona" and "Love's Labor's Lost," they are so infinitely superior to the best works of his predecessors, that the justice of the tribute paid by Spenser to his genius would at once be admitted. At all events, he had given the clearest indications of high genius, abundantly sufficient to justify the anticipation of Spenser, that he was a man "whom Nature's selfe had made To mock her selfe, and Truth to imitate." Another point not hitherto noticed, because not hitherto known, is, that there is some little ground for thinking, that Spenser, if not a Warwickshire man, was at one time resident in Warwickshire, and in London. This suspension commenced a short a temporary suspension of all theatrical exhibitions time before Spenser wrote his "Tears of the Muses," in which he notices the silence of Shakespeare; and probably continued until after the plague broke out in London, in 1592. It was at this juncture, probably, if indeed he ever Mr. C. Armitage Brown, in his very clever, and in were in that country, that Shakespeare visited Italy. many respects original work, "Shakespeare's Autobiographical Poems," has maintained the affirmative with great confidence, and has brought into one view all the internal evidence afforded by the productions of our great dramatist. External evidence there is none, since not even a tradition of such a journey has descended to us. We own that the internal evidence, in our estimation, is by no means as the only Shake-scene in a country. O! that I might entreat your rare wits to be employed in more profitable courses, and let these apes imitate your past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired inventions." strong as it appeared to Mr. Brown, who has evinced great ingenuity and ability in the conduct of his case, and has made as much as possible of his proofs. He dwells, among other things, upon the fact, that there were no contemporaneous translations of the tales on which "The Merchant of Venice" and "Othello" are founded; but that Shakespeare was capable of translating Italian sufficiently for his own purposes, we are morally certain; and we think that if he had travelled to Venice, Verona, or Florence, we should have had more distinct and positive testimony of the fact in his works than can be adduced from them. Other authors of the time have left such evidence behind them as cannot be disputed. Lyly tells us so distinctly in more than one of his pieces, and Rich informs us that he became acquainted with the novels he translated on the other side of the Alps. Although we do not believe that Shakespeare ever was in Italy, we admit that we are with out evidence to prove a negative; and he may have gone there without having left behind him any distinct record of the fact. At the date to which we are now adverting he might certainly have had a convenient opportunity for doing so, in consequence of the temporary prohibition of dramatic perform-til he came forward, had kept undisputed possession ances in London. CHAPTER VIII. Death of Robert Greene in 1592, and publication of his "Groatsworth of Wit," by H. Chettle.-Greene's address to Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele, and his envious mention of Shakespeare-Shakespeare's offence at Chettle, and the apology of the latter in his "Kind-heart's Dream."The character of Shakespeare there given.-Second allusion by Spenser to Shakespeare in "Colin Clout's come hoine again," 1594.-The "gentle Shakespeare."-Change in the character of his compositions between 1591 and 1594: his "Richard II," and "Richard III." The chief and obvious purpose of this address is to induce Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele, to cease to write for the stage; and, in the course of his exhortation, Greene bitterly inveighs against an "upstart crow," who had availed himself of the dramatic labors of others, who imagined himself able to write as good blank-verse as any of his contemporaries, who was a Johannes Fac-totum, and who, in his own opinion, was "the only SHAKE-SCENE in a country." All this is clearly levelled at Shakespeare, under the purposely-perverted name of Shake-scene, and the words, "Tiger's heart wrapp'd in a player's hide," are a parody upon a line in an historical play, (most likely by Greene) “O, tiger's heart wrapp'd in a woman's hide," from which Shakespeare had taken his "Henry VI.," part iii. Hence it is evident that Shakespeare, near the end of 1592, had established such a reputation, and was so important a rival of the dramatists, who, un he of the stage, as to excite the envy and enmity of Greene, even during his last and fatal illness. It also, we think, establishes another point not hitherto adverted to, viz., that our great poet possessed such variety of talent, that, for the purposes of the company of which he was a member, he could do anything that he might be called upon to perform: he was the Johannes Fac-totum of the association was an actor, and he was a writer of original plays, an adapter and improver of those already in existence, (some of them by Greene, Marlowe, Lodge, or Peele,) and no doubt he contributed prologues or epilogues, and inserted scenes, speeches, or passages, on any temporary emergency. Having his DURING the prevalence of the infectious malady ready assistance, the Lord Chamberlain's servants of 1592, although not in consequence of it, died one required few other contributions from rival dramaof the most notorious and distinguished of the lite-tists: Shakespeare was the Johannes Fac-totum, rary men of the time,-Robert Greene. He expired who, in all probability, had thrown men like on the 3d September, 1592, and left behind him a Greene, Lodge, and Peele, and even Marlowe himwork purporting to have been written during his self, into the shade. last illness it was published a few months afterwards by Henry Chettle, a fellow dramatist, under the title of "A Groatsworth of Wit, bought with a Million of Repentance," bearing the date of 1592, and preceded by an address from Greene "To those Gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, who spend their wits in making Plays." Here we meet with the second notice of Shakespeare, not indeed by name, but with such a near approach to it, that nobody can entertain a moment's doubt that he was intended. It is necessary to quote the whole passage, and to observe, that Greene is addressing himself particularly to Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele, and urging them to break off all connection with players:-"Base-minded men all three of you, if by my misery ye be not warned; for unto none of you, like me, sought those burs to cleave; those puppets, I mean, that speak from our mouths, those antics garnished in our colors. Is it not strange that I, to whom they all have been beholding; is it not like that you, to whom they have all been beholding, shall (were ye in that case that I am now) be both of them at once forsaken? Yes, trust theming, hindered the bitter inveighing against scholars, it hath not; for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tiger's heart wrapp'd in a player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast our blank-verse, as the best of you: and, being an absolute Johannes Fac-totum, is, in his own conceit, It was natural and proper that Shakespeare should take offence at this gross and public attack: and that he did, we are told by Chettle himself, the avowed editor of the "Groatsworth of Wit:" he does not indeed mention Shakespeare, but he designates him so intelligibly that there is no room for dispute. Marlowe, also, and not without reason, complained of the manner in which Greene had spoken of him in the same work, but to him Chettle made no apology, while to Shakespeare he offered all the amends in his power. His apology to Shakespeare is contained in a tract called "Kind-heart's Dream," which came out prior to the end of 1592. The whole passage relating to Marlowe and Shakespeare is highly interesting, and we therefore extract it entire: "About three months since died M. Robert Greene, leav ing many papers in sundry booksellers' hands: among divers play-makers, is offensively by one or two of them others his Groatsworth of Wit, in which a letter, written to taken; and because on the dead they cannot be avenged, they wilfully forge in their conceits a living author, and after tossing it to and fro, no remedy but it must light on How I have, all the time of iny conversing in printbeen very well known; and how in that I dealt, I can sufficiently prove. With neither of them, that take offence, was I acquainted; and with one of them [Marlowe I care not if I never be the other, [Shakespeare] whom at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that as I have moderated the heat of living writers, and might have used my own discretion (especially in such a case, the author being dead) that I did not I am as sorry as if the original fault had been my fault; because myself have seen his demeanor no less civil, than he excellent in the quality he professes: besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art. For the first, [Marlowe] whose learning I reverence, and at the perusing of Greene's book struck out what then in conscience I thought he in some displeasure writ, or had it been true, yet to publish it was intolerable, him I would wish to use me no worse than I deserve." The accusation of Greene against Marlowe had reference to the freedom of his religious opinions, of which it is not necessary here to say more: the attack upon Shakespeare we have already inserted and observed upon. In Chettle's apology to the latter, one of the most noticeable points is the tribute he pays to our great dramatist's abilities as an actor, his demeanor no less civil, than he excellent in the quality he professes:" the word "quality" was applied, at that date, peculiarly and technically to acting, and the "quality" Shakespeare professed" was that of an actor. "His facetious grace in writing" is separately adverted to, and admitted; while “his uprightness of dealing" is attested, not only by Chettle's own experience, but by the evidence of "divers of worship." Thus the amends made to Shakespeare for the envious assault of Greene, shows most decisively the high opinion entertained of him, towards the close of 1592, as an actor, an author, and a man.a 66 We have already inserted Spenser's warm, but not less judicious and well-merited, eulogium of Shakespeare in 1591, when in his "Tears of the Muses" he addresses him as Willy, and designates him -"that same gentle spirit, from whose pen Large streames of honnie and sweet nectar flowe." If we were to trust printed dates, it would seem that in the same year the author of "The Faerie Queene" gave another proof of his admiration of our great dramatist: we allude to a passage in "Colin Clout's come home again," which was published with a dedication dated 27th December, 1591; but Malone proved, beyond all cavil, that for 1591 we ought to read 1594, the printer having made an extraordinary blunder. In that poem (after the author has spoken of many living and dead poets, some by their names, as Alabaster and Daniel, and others by fictitious and fanciful appellations) he inserts these lines: "And there, though last not least, is Ætion; A gentler shepherd may no where be found, Malone takes unnecessary pains to establish that this passage applies to Shakespeare, although he pertinaciously denied that "our pleasant Willy" of The Tears of the Muses" was intended for him. We have no doubt on either point; the same epithet is given in both cases to the person addressed, and * More than ten years afterwards, Chettle paid another tribute to Shakespeare, under the name of Melicert, in his "England's Mourning Garment:" the author is reproaching the leading poets of the day, for not writing in honor of Queen Elizabeth, who was just dead: he thus addresses Shakespeare: "Nor doth the silver-tongued Melicert Drop from his honied Muse one sable tear, Shepherd, remember our Elizabeth, And sing her Rape, done by that Tarquin death." This passage is important, with reference to the Royal en. couragement given to Shakespeare, in consequence of the approbation of his plays at Court. that epithet one which, at a subsequent date, almost constantly accompanied the name of Shakespeare. In "The Tears of the Muses" he is called a gentle spirit," and in "Colin Clout's come home again" we are told that, "A gentler shepherd may no where be found." In the same feeling Ben Jonson calls him "my gentle Shakespeare," in the noble copy of verses prefixed to the folio of 1623, so that ere long the term became peculiarly applied to our great and amiable dramatist. This coincidence of expression is another circumstance to establish that Spenser certainly had Shakespeare in his mind when he wrote his "Tears of the Muses" in 1591, and his "Colin Clout's come home again" in 1594. In the latter instance the whole description is nearly as appropriate as in the earlier, with the addition of a line, which has a clear and obvious reference to the patronymic of our poet: his Muse, says Spenser, "Doth, like himself, heroically sound." These words alone may be taken to show, that between 1591 and 1594 Shakespeare had somewhat changed the character of his compositions: Spenser having applauded him, in his "Tears of the Muses," for unrivalled talents in comedy, (a department of the drama to which Shakespeare had, perhaps, at that date especially, though not exclusively, devoted himself) in his "Colin Clout" spoke of the "high thought's invention," which then filled Shakespeare's muse, and made her sound as “heroically" as his name. Of his genius, in a loftier strain of poetry than belonged to comedy, our great dramatist, by the year 1594, must have given some remarkable and undeniable proofs. In 1591 he had perhaps written his "Love's Labor's Lost" and "Two Gentlemen of Verona;" but in 1594 he had, no doubt, produced one or more of his great historical plays, his "Richard II." and "Richard III.," both of which, together with "Romeo and Juliet," came from the press in 1597, though the last in a very mangled, and imperfect, and unauthentic state. One circumstance may be mentioned, as leading to the belief that "Richard III." was brought out in 1594, viz., that in that year an impression of "The True Tragedy of Richard the Third," (an older play than that of Shakespeare) was published, that it might be bought under the notion that it was the new drama by the most popu lar poet of the day, then in a course of representation. It is most probable that "Richard II." had been composed before "Richard III.," and to either or both of them the lines, "Whose Muse, full of high thought's invention, will abundantly apply. The difference in the character of Spenser's tributes to Shakespeare in 1591 and 1594 was occasioned by the difference in the character of his productions. CHAPTER IX. The dramas written by Shakespeare up to 1594.-Publication of Venus and Adonis" during the plague in 1593-Dedication of it, and of "Lucrece," 1594, to the Earl of Southampton-Bounty of the Earl to Shakespeare, and coincidence between the date of the gift and the building of the Globe theatre on the Bankside.-Probability of the story that Lord Southampton presented Shakespeare with £1000. HAVING arrived at the year 1594, we may take this opportunity of stating which of Shakespeare's extant works, in our opinion, had by that date been produced. We have already mentioned the three parts of "Henry VI.," "Titus Andronicus," "The Comedy of Errors," "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," and "Love's Labor's Lost," as in being in 1591; and in the interval between 1591 and 1594, we apprehend, he had added to them "Richard II." and Richard III." Of these, the last four were entirely the work of our great dramatist: in the others he more or less availed himself of previous dramas, or possibly, of the assistance of contemporaries. We have already stated our distinct and deliberate opinion that "Venus and Adonis" was written before its author left his home in Warwickshire. He kept it by him for some years, and early in 1593 seems to have put it into the hands of a printer, named Richard Field, who, it has been said, was of Stratford. It is to be recollected that at the time "Venus and Adonis" was sent to the press, while it was printing, and when it was published, the plague prevailed in London to such an excess, that it was deemed expedient by the privy council to put a stop to all theatrical performances. Shakespeare seems to have availed himself of this interval, in order to bring before the world a production of a different character to those which had been ordinarily seen from his pen. Until "Venus and Adonis" came out, the public at large could only have known him by the dramas he had written, or by those which, at an earlier date, he had altered, amended, and revived. The poem came from Field's press in the spring of 1593, preceded by a dedication to the Earl of Southampton. Its popularity was great and instantaneous, for a new edition of it was called for in 1594, a third in 1596, a fourth in 1600, and a fifth in 1602: there may have been, and probably were, intervening impressions, which have disappeared among the popular and destroyed literature of the time. We may conclude that this admirable and unequalled production first introduced its author to the notice of Lord Southampton; and it is evident from the opening of the dedication, that Shakespeare had not taken the precaution of ascertaining, in the first instance, the wishes of the young nobleman on the subject. Lord Southampton was more than nine years younger than Shakespeare, having been born on 6th October, 1573. We may be sure that the dedication of "Venus and Adonis" was, on every account, acceptable, and Shakespeare followed it up by inscribing to the same peer, but in a much more assured and confident struin, his "Lucrece" in the succeeding year. He then "dedicated his love" to his juvenile patron, having “a warrant of his honorable disposition" towards his "pamphlet" and himself. "Lucrece" was not calculated, from its subject and the treatment of it, to be so popular as "Venus and Adonis," and the first edition having appeared from Field's press in 1594, a reprint of it does not seem to have been called for until after the lapse of four years, and the third edition bears the date of 1600. It must have been about this period that the Earl of Southampton bestowed a most extraordinary proof of his high-minded munificence upon the author of "Venus and Adonis" and "Lucrece." It was not unusual, at that time and afterwards, for noblemen, and others to whom works were dedicated, to make presents of money to the writers of them; but there is certainly no instance upon record of such generous bounty, on an occasion of the kind, as that of which we are now to speak: nevertheless, we have every reliance upon the authenticity of the anecdote, taking into account the unexampled merit of the poet, the known liberality of the nobleman, and the evidence upon which the story has been handed down. Rowe was the original narrator of it in print, and he doubtless had it, with other information, from Betterton, who probably received it directly from Sir William Davenant, and communicated it to Rowe. If it cannot be asserted that Davenant was strictly contemporary with Shakespeare, he was contemporary with Shakespeare's contemporaries, and from them he must have obtained the original information. Rowe gives the statement in these words: "There is one instance so singular in the munificence of this patron of Shakespeare's that, if I had not been assured that the story was handed down by Sir William Davenant, who was probably very well acquainted with his [Shakespeare's] affairs, I should not have ventured to have inserted; that my Lord Southampton at one time gave him a thousand pounds to enable him to go through with a purchase which he heard he had a mind to." No biographer of Shakespeare seems to have adverted to the period when it was likely that the gift was made, in combination with the nature of the purchase Lord Southampton had heard our great dramatist wished to complete, or, it seems to us, they would not have thought the tradition by any means so improbable as some have held it. The disposition to make a worthy return for the dedications of " Venus and Adonis" and "Lucrece" would of course be produced in the mind of Lord Southampton by the publication of those poems: and we are to recollect that it was precisely at the same date that the Lord Chamberlain's servants entered upon the project of building the Globe Theatre on the Bankside, not very far to the west of the Southwark foot of London Bridge. "Venus and Adonis" was published in 1593; and it was on the 22d December in that year that Richard Burbage, the great actor, and the leader of the company to which Shakespeare was attached, signed a bond to a carpenter of the name of Peter Street for the construction of the Globe. It is not too much to allow at least a year for its completion; and it was during 1594, while the work on the Bankside was in progress, that " Lucrece" came from the press. Thus we see that the building of the Globe, at the cost of the sharers in the Blackfriars theatre, was coincident in point of time with the appearance of the two poems dedicated to the Earl of Southampton. Is it, then, too much to believe that the young and bountiful nobleman, having heard of this enterprise from the peculiar interest is known to have taken in all matters relating ne stage, and having been incited by warm admiration of "Venus and Adonis" and "Lucrece," in the fore-front of which he rejoiced to see his own name, presented Shakespeare with £1000, to enable him to make good the money he was to produce, as his proportion, for the completion of the Globe? We do not mean to say that our great dramatist stood in need of the money, or that he could not have deposited it as well as the other sharers in the Blackfriars; but Lord Southampton may not have thought it necessary to inquire, whether he did or did not want it, nor to consider precisely what it had been customary to give ordinary versifiers, who sought the pay and patronage of the nobility. Although Shakespeare had not yet reached the climax of his excellence, Lord Southampton knew him to be the greatest dramatist his country had yet produced; he knew him also to be the writer of two poems, dedicated to himself, with which nothing else of the kind could bear comparison; and in the exercise of his bounty he measured the poet by his deserts, and "used him after his own honor and dignity," by bestowing upon him a sum worthy of his title and character, and which his wealth probably enabled him without difficulty to afford. We do not believe that there has been any exaggeration in the amount, (although that is more possible, than that the whole statement should have been a fiction,) and Lord Southampton may thus have intended also to indicate his hearty good will to the new undertaking of the company, and his determination to support it. CHAPTER X. The opening of the Globe theatre, on the Bankside, in 1595.Union of Shakespeare's associates with the Lord Admiral's players. The theatre at Newington Butts.-Projected repair and enlargement of the Blackfriars theatre: opposition by the inhabitants of the precinct.-Shakespeare's rank in the company in 1596.-Petition from him and seven others to the Privy Council, and its results.-Repair of the Blackfriars theatre-Shakespeare a resident in Southwark in 1596: proof that he was so from the papers at Dulwich College. We have concluded, as we think that we may do very fairly, that the construction of the new theatre on the Bankside, subsequently known as the Globe, having been commenced soon after the signature of the bond of Burbage to Street, on 22d Dec., 1593, was continued through the year 1594: we apprehend that it would be finished and ready for the reception of audiences early in the spring of 1595. It was a round wooden building, open to the sky, while the stage was protected from the weather by an overhanging roof of thatch. The number of persons it would contain we have no means of ascertaining, but it was certainly of larger dimensions than the Rose, the Hope or the Swan, three other edifices of the same kind, and used for the same purpose, in the immediate vicinity. The Blackfriars was a private theatre, as it was called, entirely covered in, and of smaller size; and from thence the company, after the Globe had been completed, was in the habit of removing in the spring, perhaps as soon as there was any indication of the setting in of fine cheerful weather. reason to think that Shakespeare did not aid in these 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. 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 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. 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 completion of the work of repair and enlargement, then commenced, but against all farther performances in the theatre. Before the building of the Globe, for the exclusive use of the theatrical servants of the Lord Chamberlain, there can be little doubt that they did not act all the year round at the Blackfriars: they appear to have performed sometimes at the Curtain in Shoreditch, and Richard Burbage, at the time of his death, still had shares in that playhouse. Whether they occupied it 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 Of this paper it is not necessary for our purpose began at three o'clock in the afternoon; for the citi-to say more; but the answer to it, on the part of zens transacted their business and dined early, and the association of actors, is a very valuable relic, many of them afterwards walked out into the fields inasmuch as it gives the names of eight players for recreation, often visiting such theatres as were who were the proprietors of the theatre or its apopen purposely for their reception. Henslowe's purtenances, that of Shakespeare being fifth in the Diary shows that the Lord Chamberlain's and the list. It will not have been forgotten, that in 1589 Lord Admiral's servants had joint possession of the no fewer than sixteen sharers were enumerated, Newington theatre from 3d June, 1594, to the 15th and that then Shakespeare's name was the twelfth; November, 1596; and during that period various but it did not by any means follow, that because pieces were performed, which in their titles resem- there were sixteen sharers in the receipts, they ble plays which unquestionably came from Shake- were also proprietors of the building, properties, or speare's pen. That none of these were productions wardrobe: in 1596 it is stated that Thomas Pope, by our great dramatist, it is, of course, impossible Richard Burbage, John Hemings, (properly spelt to affirm; but the strong probability seems to be, Heminge,) Augustine Philips, William Shakespeare, that they were older dramas, of which he subse- William Kempe, (who withdrew from the company quently, more or less, availed himself. We have no in 1601,) William Slye, and Nicholas Tooley, were |