Note return to page 1 1Before we proceed further, it may be proper to ascertain the orthography of our poet's name. That the pronunciation of his own time was Shakspeare, is proved decisively, by illiterate persons, who spelt by the ear, writing the name either Shaxspere, or Shackspere; of which, instances from authentick documents will be given hereafter: and that he himself wrote his name without the middle e, appears from his autograph, of which a fac-simile will be found in a subsequent page. With respect to the last syllable of his name, the people of Stratford appear to have generally written the name Shakspere, or Shackspere: and I have now great doubts whether he did not frequently write the final syllable so himself; for I suspect that what was formerly supposed to be the letter a over his autograph above-mentioned, was only a coarse and broad mark of a contraction; and in the signatures of his name subscribed to his will (as a very ingenious anonymous correspondent observes to me), certainly the letter a is not to be found in the second syllable. It should be remembered, that in all words where per occurred, in old English writing, this contraction (&pab;) was generally substituted. The true origin, I believe, of his countrymen thus spelling the latter part of his name, was this: instead of speare (hasta) following the sound, they constantly wrote spere; and hence the name of Sperepoynt, another family in Stratford, was thus exhibited. Mr. Richard Quiney, and many of the Stratfordians, in consequence of this being the common mode of spelling the word spear or speare, and of being used to the contraction above-mentioned, frequently wrote our poet's name thus: Mr. Shaks&pab;.; and in some of the writings of the borough, I have found the name written at length Shaksper, which was probably the vulgar pronunciation. But as spere was a mispelling of the word speare, from the cause already assigned; and as it is not so properly old spelling, as false spelling; in my opinion it ought not to be adopted in exhibiting our author's name at this day; and therefore I write Shakspeare, and not Shakspere. Mr. Thomas Greene, a solicitor in Chancery, a contemporary and relation of our author, followed the orthography which we now adopt, as will be seen hereafter. The various modes in which our poet's name has been exhibited, have been the subject of much disquisition; but those who are conversant with the laxity of ancient orthography, must have met with so many instances of the same kind, that this variance can be no novelty to them. “The same surname (says Fuller, in his English Worthies, p. 51), hath been variously altered in writing: first, because time teacheth new orthography, altering spelling, as well as speaking: secondly, the best gentlemen anciently were not the best scholars; and, minding matters of more moment, were somewhat too incurious in their names. Besides, writers engrossing deeds were not over-critical in spelling of names, knowing well where the person appeared the same, the simplicity of that age would not fall out about misnomer. Lastly, ancient families have been often removed into several counties, where several writings follow the several pronunciations.” So variously was the name of Percy written, that the learned and ingenious Bishop of Dromore has, I think, enumerated above twenty different ancient modes of spelling that name. The name of Villiers, Fuller observes, was spelt fourteen different ways; and in the spelling of the name of Gascoygne, Thoresby and Oldys have exhibited twenty-one variations. Sir Walter Ralegh has written his name in a book in the Bodleian Library, as I now have done; yet his contemporaries much more frequently wrote Rawleigh, or Raleigh, or Rawley; nor was he himself, I believe, uniform in his practice. Mr. Abraham Sturley, an alderman of Stratford, with whom the reader will be better acquainted hereafter, as often wrote his name Strelley as Sturley: and the name of our poet's son-in-law was written Hawle, Halle, Haule, and Hall; in the first and the last of these ways he himself wrote it at different periods of his life. A similar variance is to be found in the names of Burghley, which is exhibited in four or five different ways; of Habington the historian (frequently written and printed Abington), Massinger and Dekker the poets, and many others. Edward Alleyn, the player, wrote his name sometimes Allin, sometimes Allen, and at others Aleyn or Alleyn. The names of Heminges and Condell, our poet's fellow comedians, are written differently in the very volume which they themselves published. And lastly, to come nearer to our own time, instead of John Dryden, the name to which we are now familiarized, we have before the second edition of his Essay of Dramatick Poesie, and also in an advertisement in the London Gazette, N1, John Dreyden; and in the last page this name was also written Driden and Dreydon. Fuller, writing on this subject, concludes like a true antiquary: “However such diversity appeareth in the eye of others, I dare profess that I am delighted with the prospect thereof.” Though I fear my readers may not have so much enthusiasm (as I “dare profess” I have not), yet I trust they will pardon the length of this disquisition, which perhaps nothing but the name of Shakspeare could justify. Under the protection of that seven-fold shield an editor may set criticks and cavillers at defiance. &grS;&grt;&grh; &grd;) &gra;&grr; &grur;&grp;&grap; &grA;&gri;&gra;&grn;&grt;&gro;&grst; &grs;&gra;&grk;&gre;&grid; &grT;&gre;&grl;&gra;&grm;&grw;&grn;&gri;&gra;&grd;&gra;&gro;.

Note return to page 2 2In 1790, the present writer endeavoured, in some degree, to supply the defects of Mr. Rowe's short narrative, by adding to it copious annotations.

Note return to page 3 3This family is of great antiquity in the county of Warwick. The woodland part of that county was anciently called Arderne, whence they derived their name. “I learned at Warwike (says Leland), that the most part of the shire of Warwike that lyeth as Avon river descendeth, on the right hand or ripe of it, is in Arden (for soe is [the] ancient name of that part of the shire); and the ground in Arden is much enclosed, plentifull of grasse, but not of corne. The other parte of Warwikeshire that lyeth on the left hand or ripe of Avon river, much to the south, is for the most part champion, somewhat barren of wood, but plentifull of corne.” Itin. vol. iv. p. 2, fol. 166, a. So also Camden: “Woodland trans Avonem ad septentriones expanditur spatio multo majori, tota nemoribus infessa, nec tamen sine pascuis, arvis, et variis ferri venis. Hæc, ut hodie Woodland, id est, regio sylvestris, ita etiam Ardern antiquiori nomine olim dicebatur, verum eadem plane, ut existimo, significatione. Ardern enim priscis Britannis et Gallis sylvam significasse videtur, cum in Gallia sylvam maximam Ardern, oppidum in Flandria juxta alteram sylvam Ardenburg, et celebratam illam Angliæ sylvam truncato vocabulo Den nominari videamus. Ex hâc Turkillus de Ardern, qui hic floruit magno honore sub Henrico primo [A. D. 1100], nomen assumpsit, et propago ejus admodum clara longe per Angliam succedentibus annis est diffusa.” Britan. p. 501, edit. 1600. The original name, Arderne, was in process of time softened into Arden, anterior, as it should seem, to the forest of Den being thus denominated. Our ancestors were always extremely fond of abbreviations (vocabula truncata), and seem to have had a peculiar aversion to the letter r, which they very frequently omitted, by placing a line or stroke over the word as a mark of the abbreviation. Arderne being generally thus written [Ardene], the r was at length wholly omitted in writing and speaking. The successive representatives of the family of Arden, however, according to the capricious modes of ancient spelling, were by no means uniform in writing their names: some exhibiting it in one way, some in another. In Leland's time, the name, we find, had acquired the softer sound which we now give it: indeed, a century before, if Fuller is correct, Robert Arden (not Ardern), Esq. of Bromwick, was returned in the list of the gentry of this county by the commissioners appointed for that purpose in the twelfth year of King Henry VI. A. D. 1433. Many other names have undergone a similar change. Thus the name of Nangle, in process of time became Nagle; Grenville, became Greville; the word Nursery, became Nurs'ey, &c.

Note return to page 4 4Usually pronounced Wincot. So, Mr. William Clapton, in his will, made May 9, 1521, devises Clapton and Wyncote to his executors till they shall have received 200 marks, as a marriage portion for Elizabeth his daughter. This village was formerly more considerable than it is at present, having had a church, as appears by the Register of the Guild of the Holy Cross at Stratford. “Raphe Couper, rector of the church at littell Wilmicote, was admitted into the brotherhood of the Gild, Ano. Dni. 1408, x Henry iiii.” fol. iii. b. The tithes of this rectory do not appear to have belonged to the Guild of the Holy Cross in the 22d year of Henry VIII. (1530); not being mentioned in the Rent-Roll of the Guild for that year, now among the archives of Stratford; but in the 37th of Henry VIII. according to a survey then made (Dugdale's Antiq. of Warw. p. 485), “the lands and tenements of the Guild, with the tithes of Wylmyncote, certified to belong thereto, were valued of 50l. 23d. ob. per ann.” In a Rent-Roll, Ed. VI. [1547], I find the tithes of Wilmecote were then let at 20s. per. ann., and the total revenue of the guild was 49l. 18s. 8½d.

Note return to page 5 5Agnes Webbe was a native of Bearley, a village about three miles from Wilmecote. In the proceedings of a court leet held at Stratford in April, 1558, I find the following entry: “Raf Cawdrey for making a fray upon Alexander Web of Bereley, he stands amerced xiid.” From the will of Mrs. Arden, of which a more particular account will be given hereafter, it appears that she was sister to Alexander Webbe. She survived her husband twenty-four years, as appears from the register of the parish of Aston Cantlow, in which, among the burials, is found—“1580 The xxixth daye of Dec. was buried Agnes Arden, wyddow.” Christopher Arden was buried there August 8, 1581; and Elizabeth Arden March 29, 1588: but I know not in what degree of relationship they stood to our poet's grandfather.

Note return to page 6 6William, Earl of Salisbury, a natural son of Henry II. by fair Rosamond, if we may believe the metrical romance of Richard Cœur de Lion, acquired the title of Longue-espee, in consequence of his gallant exploits at the siege of Messina, under our Richard the First, when he was on his way to the Holy Land.

Note return to page 7 7“Breakspear, Shakspear, and the lyke, have byn surnames imposed upon the first bearers of them, for valour and feates of armes.” Verstegan's Restitution of Decayed Intelligence, 4to. 1605, p. 294. See also Camden's Remaines, 4to. 1605, p. 111. Nicolas Breakspeare, as well as our poet, bore arms which have a reference to his name; a broken lance, &c. See his arms accurately described in the Notes on N. Upton's treatise De Militari Studio, p. 46.

Note return to page 8 8No information concerning the Shakspeares of Rowington during the fifteenth century, at which period, and probably long before, they flourished there, can be obtained from the register of that parish, the earliest register being lost, and the oldest book now extant commencing in 1639. But other documents fully ascertain what is stated in the text. “Willm. Wethyford of the parish of Rownton in the county of Warwick,” made his will 31st March, 1564; and it was proved at Worcester, on the 25th of Feb. 1574. An inventory of his effects is annexed with the following title: “This is the Inventorye of all and singular the goodes and cattel of Will&mbar; Wethyford of Rownton, latelye deceased, praysed by Jhon Benett, Richd. Shakspere, Willi. Ley & Thomas Ley, the xiii day of September, 1564.” Bundle of Wills, sub an. 1574, in the Consistory Office at Worcester. From the will of John Shaxpere of Rowington, made the 26th of June, 1574, it appears that he had two sons, and one daughter. To his son Thomas he bequeathed twenty pounds; to his son George, his “freeland called Madge Wattons;” to his daughter Annis, fifteen marks, to be paid on the day of her marriage. The testator mentions a brother of the name of Nicholas. That part of the paper which contained an account of the probate, being torn off, and wanting, I know not when he died. Bundle of Wills, sub an. 1574, ut supra. George, the younger son of the above-mentioned John, died in 1628; and by his will, made Jan. 30, 1627 [8], devised to his son Thomas, Madge Wattons, adjoining to Schrewle heath, in the parish of Hatton, and after the death of his wife his copyhold in Rowington. Bundle of Wills in 1627, ut supra. Richard Shaxsper, the elder, of Rowington, probably the person mentioned in the inventory annexed to the will of William Withyford, in 1564, made his will, Sept. 6. 1591. He had four sons; John, Roger, Thomas, and William. John was then married, and had three sons born, of which the eldest was Thomas. Richard Shaxper died between Sept. 1591, and March 31, 1592: his will having been proved on that day. Bundle of Wills, sub an. 1592, ut supra. From the Court Rolls of the manor of Rowington (from which I have been obligingly furnished with an extract by Mr. John Payne, of Coventry, Attorney at Law), it appears that John Shakspeare, the eldest son of Richard above-mentioned, died in 1609; and that Thomas Shakspeare was admitted to the Hill Farm as his son and heir. This Thomas, from his will, which was made in 1614, appears to have been a mealman, or baker, and lived at Mouseley End, in Rowington. May 5, 1614, his widow was admitted in the Court Baron to her free-bench, and afterwards surrendered to her son John, who was then admitted accordingly. He died in Feb. 1652–3, leaving two sons, William, who died in 1690, and John, who died in 1710. Another Richard Shaxper of Rowington, who is likewise styled the elder, died in April, 1614. His sons, as appears from his will, were William, Richard, Thomas, and John. Richard, the younger, had four sons then living, all minors; and William had one son, named John, likewise a minor. Bundle of Wills, sub an. 1614, ut supra. Richard the elder having surrendered a messuage in Turner's End, or Church End, Rowington, to the use of his youngest son John (who was a weaver), after the death of himself and his wife Elizabeth, the eldest son, William, contested this disposition. From a bill filed by John against William, in May, 1616, and the answer of William in the same year, it appears that the copyhold and tenement above-mentioned had been possessed by the father for fifty years. In Tur. Londin. Record Office, S. xiv. 57. In May, 1595, a bill was filed by Thomas Shackspeare, of Rowington, yeoman, and Mary his wife, daughter and heir of William Mathew, deceased, against William Rogers. This Thomas claimed, in right of his wife, “a messuage and tenement with the appurtenances in Rowington and Claredon, and of certain lands in Hatton Schrewle, Rowington, and Pinley.” This bill contains nothing else worth notice; and is only mentioned here, as ascertaining the existence of such a person. In Tur. Lond. Record Office, Ss. xi. 32. Various branches of the family of Shakspeare continued at Rowington, during the last and present century. The only person, as I have been informed, now remaining in that parish of the name of Shakspeare, is a person who keeps a publick house at a place called Pinley Green, the son of Thomas Shakspeare, blacksmith, who died in 1785. The Hill Farm, however, above-mentioned, which descended from Richard Shakspeare who died in 1592, was possessed by the late Mr. William Shakspeare, of Knowle Hall, who died in August, 1762, at the age of seventy-five, and, as I learn from Mr. John Payne, of Coventry, attorney-at-law, is now the property of Mr. John Edward Yarrow, the fifth in descent from Mary Shakspeare, grand-daughter of John Shakspeare, who, as we have already seen, died in 1609.

Note return to page 9 9It appears from the register of Lapworth, that William Hart and Alice Shakspeare were married there, October 15, 1564. We shall presently see that our poet's sister, Joan Shakspeare, married a William Hart, at Stratford, in or before 1599, who might have been the son of William Hart, of Lapworth. There were, however, Harts settled at Stratford early in the 16th century. Anne, the daughter of George Shakspeare, was baptized at Lapworth, Feb. 7, 1586. Richard, the son of George Shakspeare and Elizabeth, his wife, was baptized there, Jan. 18, 1590. John Shakspeare and Mary Huett [Hewitt] were married there Feb. 16, 1617. Alice, the wife of John Shakspeare, was buried there, July 21, 1624. John Shakspeare and Mary Whiting were married there, Nov. 7, 1628. Humphry Shakspeare, of Lapworth, was buried at Rowington, October 30, 1729; and Sarah, his wife, was buried there some years before, October 4, 1720, aged eighty-two. John Shakspeare died at Lapworth in 1637, and bequeathed two shillings a-year to the poor of the parish for ever. In the Chirographer's Office I found a fine levied in 1603 by George Robins to Joseph Shakspeare, of Lapworth.

Note return to page 10 1John Shaxper, of Wroxall, labourer, made his will, Dec. 17, 1574, and died in Jan. 1574–5, leaving one son, named Edward. He mentions in his will his brother William; and his cousin Laurence Shaxper, of Balsal. Bundle of Wills, sub an. 1575, ut supra. William Shaxpeare, of Wroxall, husbandman, made his will April 17, 1609, and died some time before April 11, 1613, when it was proved at Worcester. He was probably a nephew to the preceding. Bundle of Wills, sub an. 1613, ut supra.

Note return to page 11 2The early register of the hamlet of Knowle is lost; but there was in the present century a respectable family of the name of Shakspeare established at Knowle Hall.

Note return to page 12 3From the Chirographer's Office I have been furnished with the following note of a fine levied Mich. 12 Jac. I. [1614.] “Warwickshire.—Between William Shakespeare and George Shakespeare, Plfs, and Thomas Spencer, Esqre. Christopher Flecknoe and Thomas Tompson, Deforciants, of eight acres of pasture, with the appurtenants, in Claverdon, otherwise Clardon.”

Note return to page 13 4In the Rolls Chapel I found a deed enrolled, which was made in the 44th year of Queen Elizabeth [1601–2], conveying “to Thomas Shakespeare of Warwick, yeoman, Sachbroke, alias Bishop Sachbroke in Com. Warr.” Thomas Shaxper, of Warwick, shoemaker, as appears by his will, in the registry of Worcester, died in 1577, possessed of the lordship of Balsal; leaving three sons, William, Thomas, and John, and one daughter, married to Francis Ley: another, Thomas Shakspeare, perhaps the second son of the preceding, made his will, Aug. 20, 1631, and died in 1632. By an inventory annexed to his will, his personal effects appear to have been worth 150l. 3s. 6d. Bundle of Wills, sub an. 1632, ut supra. In 1619, when the visitation of Warwick was made by Sampson Lennard and Augustin Vincent, deputies for William Camden, Thomas Shakspeare was one of the burgesses of Warwick. He mentions his shop in his will; and I suspect that he was a butcher. A fine was levied by one Thomas Shakspeare to Michael Lee, in Michaelmas Term, 1608, of lands in Nuneaton, in the county of Warwick.

Note return to page 14 5In the register of Stratford, we find that Elizabeth, the daughter of Anthony Shakspeare, of Hampton, was baptized Feb. 10, 1583–4.

Note return to page 15 8To the will of Christopher Smyth, otherwise Court, of Stratford upon Avon, made Nov. 2, 1586, and proved at Stratford, Dec. 2. in the same year, is subjoined a list of “Debts due to the said Christopher.” “It. Henry Shakspere of Snytterfield oweth me vli. ixs.” It appears from the register of the parish of Snitterfield that Henry Shakspeare was buried there Dec. 29, 1596; and Margaret, his widow, was buried there a few weeks afterwards, Feb. 6, 1596–7. There was also a Thomas Shakspeare settled at Snitterfield; for John, the son of Thomas Shakspeare, was baptized there, March 10, 1581–2. Our poet's grandfather might, however, have been originally of Ingon, in the parish of Hampton upon Avon, or as it was then called, Bishop Hampton; for a Henry Shakspeare (whether the same person already mentioned, or another, does not appear,) lived at one time in that parish, the register of which contains the following entries: “1582, June 10, Lettyce, the daughter of Henrye Shakespere, was baptized, “1585, Oct. 15, Jeames the sonne of Henrye Shakespere was baptized. “1589, Oct. 25, Jeames Shakspeare of Yngon was buried.” Henry Shakspeare might have lived at one time at Snitterfield, afterwards have moved to Ingon, and finally returned to Snitterfield. Ingon is in the parish of Hampton, but nearer to Snitterfield than Hampton. It is observable that Mr. John Shakspeare, as we shall presently see, held a farm at Ingon; to which he might be attached either as the place of his nativity, or as being in the neighbourhood of Snitterfield, if he was born there.

Note return to page 16 9Though Great Wilmecote, in which Mr. Arden lived, is in the parish of Aston Cantlow, Little Wilmecote, which adjoins it, is in that of Stratford; and this circumstance, together with its vicinity to that town, for it is but two miles distant, necessarily occasioned some intercourse between these places.

Note return to page 17 1“Stratford Cur.” Cur. ibm. tent. vicesimo nono die Novembris, primo anno regni d&nbar;æ nostræ Mariæ, &c. [1553.] Joh&ebar;s Dyckson fatet. accion. quem Robertus Arderne de Wylmecot versus eum pros. sup. dem. iiijs. Id. fiat. leva. et concord. in cur. quod pecunia &pab;d. solut. fuerit citra prox. cur.” Codex MS. in Camerâ Stratforden.

Note return to page 18 2A yard land (virgata terræ), from the Saxon gyrd land, varies much in different counties; in some containing twenty-five, in others thirty, in others forty acres. The yard land here mentioned, as will be shown hereafter, contained near fifty acres. In the fields of Old Stratford, where our poet's estate lay, a yard land contained only about twenty-seven acres.

Note return to page 19 3F. levet in Term. Pasch. 20 Eliz. in Officio Finium juxta Medium Templum.

Note return to page 20 4Will of William Clopton, proved in Feb. 1599–60. In Off. Cur. Prerog.

Note return to page 21 5Having taken a journey to Worcester with the hope of finding this, and some other wills, that might throw a light on our author's history, I thought myself fortunate in meeting with the information which has just now been submitted to my readers; but, according to a doctrine maintained in an anonymous work [The Pursuits of Literature], I ought rather to make an apology for taking up their time with such idle prible-prabble, worthy only of Sir Hugh Evans or Master Slender. A modern poet, not wholly without humour, among a great number of notes appended to his verses, of which the object is not very apparent, unless it were to show, that while he inveighs against the supposed folly and absurdity of those who have attempted to illustrate our great poet by their annotations, he can himself occasionally “out-herod Herod,” has the following sagacious remark: “When I speak of rational men, it passes the bounds of all sagacity to divine by what species of refined absurdity the wills and testaments of actors could be raked up and published to illustrate Shakspeare. (See Malone's edit. vol. ii. p. 186, &c. &c.) A critick for such an ingenious invention should be presented with the altum Saganæ caliendrum, which would not easily fall from his head.—But Mr. M. has redeemed this piece of folly by many valuable excellencies.” As in the course of the present work the reader will find several similar pieces of folly (if this be one) it may not be improper to say a word or two on this subject in limine; and, after acknowledging the courtesy of the concluding words above quoted, to examine how far the preceding charge is well founded. It has been long since observed, that those who write should read. If this judicious, though much neglected document had been attended to by the writer of the paragraph above quoted, he would not have fallen into the manifest error, I will not say the refined absurdity, with which it is justly chargeable. He would have learned, in the first place, that the wills which he alludes to, were not raked up [i. e. discovered with infinite difficulty and trouble], or published to illustrate Shakspeare, but the History of the Stage, and of the old actors who were fellow comedians with our great poet, which it is humbly conceived they in some small measure do; the number of the testator's wives and children, the fortune which he acquired by his profession, with various other circumstances which are frequently furnished by his will, and the time of his death, which is generally nearly ascertained by the probate, being, it is supposed, of some little consequence in the history of his life. He next would have learned, that though the primary object of the publication of these wills was not, as he has erroneously supposed, to illustrate Shakspeare, they do in fact illustrate the works of this poet; if furnishing the means of ascertaining the genuine copy of an author's writings, and of distinguishing it from spurious and adulterated editions of them, deserves the name of illustration: he would have found from these wills, that the two actors who were editors of the first complete collection of our author's plays in folio, were dead before the end of the year 1630, and thus he would have escaped the refined absurdity of asserting that two dead men “corrected the spurious edition of those plays in 1632.” The truth, however, I believe, is, that when his satire was first published, this writer was an humble candidate to be employed by the booksellers of London, in continuing and completing some of the great biographical works, which for many years past have been given to the publick; the editors of which, however diligent or respectable, seem to have thought, with this anonymous rhymer, that in biographical researches it is quite unnecessary to examine a single manuscript in the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, or any other curious repository. To open a parish register, or peruse a tomb-stone or a will, they seem to have held, with him, an abomination, and an invasion of the sacred rights of the dead: the genealogies of families preserved in the College of Heralds, the curious notices furnished by the patent and clause rolls, by dormant privy seals, by the Signet, Auditors, and Chirographer's Office, and by the inquisitions taken post mortem, which, from the time of Richard the Third, are preserved in the Chapel of the Rolls (as those antecedent are in the Tower), appear to have been equally objects of their aversion; and the Record Office in the same ancient repository, and the black-book in the Exchequer, they, without doubt, concurred with him in considering as appropriated only to the use of those who profess the black art, and are worthy of an altum Saganæ caliendrum. “Would you wish for better sympathy?” From the specimen above given by this judicious and well-informed critick, it is manifest that he is admirably suited to the literary employment to which he seems to have aspired: and by subjoining to the old inaccurate and imperfect lives of our illustrious men, copious extracts from modern editions of their works (which are in every one's hands), embellished with a few college jokes and that kind of merriment Dr. Johnson has so pointedly described, (Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. i.) I have no doubt he will be able very speedily to furnish his employers with a trim volume of biography perfectly free from any ingenious invention, without a single will, or deed, or anecdote, or any curious or valuable information whatsoever.

Note return to page 22 6See the Appendix.

Note return to page 23 7The first grant of arms to John Shakspeare was made by Robert Cooke, Clarencius, in 1569 or 1570; but it is not now extant in the Herald's Office. A book of grants of arms made by this herald to persons living in the county of Warwick, is, however, probably somewhere extant, for it was formerly, as I learn from one of Antony Wood's Manuscripts, in Ashmole's Museum, in the possession of Ralph Sheldon, of Weston, in Warwickshire, Esq. Of the second grant made, by Sir William Dethick, in 1596, there are two drafts in the Herald's Office, Vincent, 157, n. 23 and 24; the latter of which is much mutilated, a considerable part of the sheet having been torn off. The more perfect of the two may be found in the Appendix.

Note return to page 24 8He was only his wife's step-father.

Note return to page 25 9So, also, Sir John Hubaud, of Idlicote, in Warwickshire, in his will, made in 1583, constitutes his cousin George Digby, his brother John Egeock, and his servant Richard Clark, his executors; and Edward Coombe, in 1597, makes Christopher Hales, who had married his sister, and whom he calls his brother, one of his executors. The appellations, father-in-law, and son-in-law, seldom occur in that age. So fond were our ancestors of extending the circle of relations, that they frequently considered a mere connection as a ground of this kind of designation: thus Philip Henslowe was, in fact, no relation whatsoever of Edward Alleyn, though he constantly called him son. Bishop Hall, in the Dedication of his Quo Vadis, in 1617, addressing Lord Denny, calls Lord Hay his noble son, in consequence of his having married Lord Denny's daughter; and Bayle, taking Hall's words in a literal sense, supposed Lord Denny to be actually father to Lord Hay. See Gen. Dict. v. 716, note H. So Lord Strafford, in 1637, writing to the mother of his first wife, styles himself her obedient son (Straff. Lett. ii. 123): and our author, in Julius Cæsar, styles Cassius the brother of Brutus, though, in truth, only his brother-in-law. The term, indeed, of son-in-law, or brother-in-law, rarely occurs in that age. At a subsequent period, Oliver Cromwell, and Waller, the poet, called each other cousins, only because John Hampden was cousin to them both. With respect to the relations of a wife, the husband always addressed them, and spoke of them, as standing in the same degree of relationship to him. Thus Thomas Killigrew dedicates his play, entitled The Princess, to his dear niece the Lady Anne Wentworth, who was in truth only his wife's niece. It was the constant custom in old times, and the practice is not wholly disused, for a nephew to call his great uncle, only uncle; and the wife's grandfather and grandmother were always considered and called the grandfather and grandmother of the husband; with equal laxity, grandmothers denominated a grandson by the nearer appellation of son. So Joan, Lady Abervagenny, in her will in 1436, calls Sir James Ormond her son, though he was in fact her grandson. From these usages it is clear, that the interpretation given in the text, of the ambiguous words in the grant of the heralds to our poet, is by no means fanciful or far-fetched. I may add, that a similar error to that, which I believe has prevailed for near a century, of supposing Shakspeare to be descended from a paternal ancestor who had been rewarded with a royal grant of lands, instead of a maternal one, has happened in the case of Oliver Cromwell, who was thought by many to be descended from Cromwell, Earl of Essex; because forsooth his wife was descended from a nobleman with that title; not indeed Thomas Cromwell, but William Bourchier, Earl of Essex. See Dugdale's Bar. ii. 132.

Note return to page 26 1In their subsequent grant, indeed, in 1599, they have deviated from their original statement, and added that he was rewarded with a grant of lands in Warwickshire, which we shall presently see was not the fact. But this slight inaccuracy in the latter instrument cannot affect the present hypothesis, when we recollect, that, after having rightly stated, in the grant of 1596, the degree of his relationship to John Shakspeare (grandfather), his son's place of residence, “Wilmecote,” and his grand-daughter's Christian name (Mary), they, in two of these particulars in their grant of 1599, are inaccurate; and the third, they have wholly omitted. I may add, that grants of lands in Warwickshire having been made by King Henry the Eighth to the elder branch of Robert Arden's family (see p. 38, n. 9), the heralds being instructed that Henry the Seventh had been equally liberal to one of the younger branches, might have taken it for granted that the lands conferred on him were in that county, where his family had long resided; and as they express it, “had continued by some descents in good reputation and credit.” Heralds, when once they were satisfied that there was a sufficient ground for granting the arms which were claimed, were not very rigid in examining into the title-deeds of men's estates.

Note return to page 27 2Dugdale's Antiq. of Warwickshire, p. 653, edit. 1656. For this assertion he only quotes Holgrave, qu. 19, by which is meant the nineteenth quire of the book so denominated in the Prerogative Office; but in that quire there is no will of any person of the name of Arden. I suppose, therefore, that in the will of some other person contained in the quire cited, Sir John Arden is mentioned (probably as one of the feoffees in some feofment), and is described as Squire for the body to King Henry the Seventh; but the laxity of this reference prevents me from furnishing my readers with the words alluded to by Dugdale. A passage, however, in Sir John Arden's will, which is in the Prerogative Office (Parch. qu. 8), proves that he was frequently honoured by the visits of the King, whom he probably attended in Bosworth field. By his will, which was made on the 4th of June, 1526 (not 1525, as Dugdale has it), he gives to his son Thomas, as “heire lomys and to remayne in the maner of the Loge from heire to heire, a standing cup with a cover well gilt, and the best salt with a cover.” He likewise bequeaths to him “a paire of swannys, breedy&nbar;g in the mote; a great pott with a great paire of gobbards; a great broch; a paire of andyrons for the hall; a folding table with the kerven cupbord; the bedde in the king's chamber with all that belongeth of the best, with a hanging of the same, rede and grene.” To his son John, “a gowne furred with foye, a blak gowne furred with booge, a blak velvet doublet;” his “best hose, the secunde salt with a cover, the secunde wayne, two oxen, an oxe-harrowe, with the hole tynys, two candlesticks, a better and a worse.” To his wife Elizabeth, “all the goods that she brought, both here and at the Holt.” Of his brother Robert, who is one of the witnesses to his will, he thus speaks: “Item, I will that my brothers, Thomas, Martin, and Robert, have their fees during their lives.” This will was proved, June 27, 1526; and it appears from the Office found after the death of the testator, that he died on the day on which his will was made. Esc. 18 Hen. VIII. p. 1, n. 9. Dugdale was unacquainted with the exact time of his death.

Note return to page 28 3See a manuscript in the Herald's Office, M. 7, entitled “The Services of Divers Officers of the Courte,” one part of which was written in the time of King Henry VII. another in the 13th year of Henry VIII. “As for the Squyers for the body, they ought to aray the kyng and unaray, and no man else to sett hand on the kyng, and the yeman or grome of the robes to take to the Squyer for the body all the kyngs stuffe, as well his shone as his other gere. And the Squyer for the body to draw theym on. And the Squyer for the body aught to take the charge of the cupborde for all nyght; and if please the kyng to have a palett abowt his traverse for all night, there must be two Squyers for the body, or ells one knyght for the body; or els to lye in their owne chambers. And the usher must kepe the chamber dore untill the kyng be in bedd: and to be thereat on the morowe at the kyngs uprysyng: and the usher must see that the watche be sett, and to know of the kyng where they shall watche.” P. 33, verso. “Item, a Squyer for the body or gentleman huisher owght to sett the kyngs sworde at his bedd hed. “Item, a Squyer for the body owght to charge a secret grome or page to have the kepyng of the said bedd, with a light until the tyme the kyng be disposed to go unto hit.” Ibid. p. 20, verso. “At dinner (says a late writer on the nature and duty of this office), there was another office to be performed by the esquire; for the ordinances of King Henry VII. tell us, that one of the esquires of the body is to be ready and obedient at dinner and supper, to serve the king of his pottage at such time as he shall be commanded by the sewer and gentleman usher. “Though we have now left the king in his privy chamber, and in the hands of the servants of that department, yet we must not entirely dismiss the esquire; for Sir H. Spelman says, that when the king went out, the office of the esquire was to follow him and carry the cloak. “Thus much for the office of the esquire of the body by day; but the principal, most essential, and most honourable part of his duty was at night; for when the king retired to bed, the esquire had the concentrated power of the gentleman ushers, the vice chamberlain, and lord chamberlain, in himself; having the absolute command of the house both above and below stairs. At this period [the reign of King Henry VIII.], and till the close of the last century, the royal apartments, from the bedchamber to the guard-chamber inclusively, were occupied in the night by one or more of the servants belonging to each chamber respectively. The principal officer, then the gentleman, now the lord of the bedchamber, slept in a pallet bed in the same room with the king; and in the ante-room between the privy chamber and the bedchamber (in the reign of King Charles II. at least) slept the groom of the bedchamber. In the privy chamber next adjoining, slept two of the six gentlemen of the privy chamber in waiting; and in the presence chamber, the esquire of the body on a pallet bed, upon the haut pas, under the cloth of estate; while one of the pages of the presence chamber slept in the same room, without the verge of the canopy, not far from the door. All these temporary beds were put up at night, and displaced in the morning, by the officers of a particular branch of the wardrobe, called the wardrobe of beds. “After supper, previous to the king's retiring to his bedchamber, the proper officers were to see all things furnished for the night, some for the king's bedchamber, and others for the king's cup-board, which was sometimes in the privy chamber, and sometimes in the presence chamber, at the royal pleasure, and furnished with refections for the king's refreshment, if called for. After this, the officers of the day retired, and committed all to the charge of the esquire of the body. This domestick ceremony was called the Order of All Night; the nature of which I shall now give at large from an account preserved in the Lord Chamberlain's Office. The writer, who was himself an esquire of the body to two successive kings, goes circumstantially through the whole of the esquire's business of the night; from whence it will appear, that even so lately as the middle of the last century, the office was of so confidential a nature, that no despatch, letter, or message, could be communicated to the king in the night, but what was brought to the esquire on duty, and by him carried in propriâ personâ to the king.” For a more particular account of this ancient office, which finally expired in the time of King William (1694), and the ceremony called the Order of All Night, see Curialiæ, or an Historical Account of some Branches of the Royal Household, by Samuel Pegge, Esq. Part I. 4to. 1782.

Note return to page 29 4Esc. 18 Hen. VIII. p. 1, n. 97.

Note return to page 30 5That Robert, the nephew of Sir John Arden, was placed in this situation originally by the favour of his uncle, is extremely probable, from the nature of the duty of a groom or page of the King's chamber, who attended on certain occasions on the squire for the body, as that officer did on the King. See a manuscript in the Herald's Office, already quoted, M. 7, p. 19: “The Rome and service belonging to a Page of the kyngs Chamber to doo. “Item, the said Pageis at nyght, at season convenyent, must make the payletts for knyghts and squyers for the body, in suche a chamber as they shalbe appoynted unto. “Item, the said pageis shall doo make redy the said knyghts and Squyers for the body, and bere theyr gere to the kyngs great chamber at the instaunce of the said knyghts and squyers to their servaunts: And the said pageis to receive of the said knyghts and squyers servaunts such nyght gere as they shall delyver theym for their said maistres. Thus don, the said pageis to make sure the fyers and lights in every chamber, and so to make their paylet at the chamber dore where the said knyghts and Squyers do lye.”

Note return to page 31 6See Appendix.

Note return to page 32 7See Appendix.

Note return to page 33 8By an inquisition taken October 4, 33 Eliz. [1591], after the death of Sir William Holles, who died at Haughton, in the county of Nottingham, on the 26th of the preceding January, it was found, that he died possessed (inter alia) of the manor of Yoxall, with all its appurtenances, in the county of Stafford, comprising forty messuages, twenty cottages, one water-mill, two pigeon-houses, forty gardens, forty orchards, two thousand three hundred acres of meadow, one thousand acres of pasture, one hundred acres of wood, forty acres of furze and heath, two hundred acres of marsh, with a rent of ten pounds a year; and that the whole manor was worth annually forty pounds and ten-pence [the rent reserved to the crown in the grant under which Sir William Holles held]. Esc. 33 Eliz. p. 1, n. 122.

Note return to page 34 9Beside the distinction which was shown by King Henry the Seventh to Sir John Arden, who, we have seen, was one of the squires for his body, and the lucrative grant to our poet's great grandfather, Robert Arden, the groom of the chamber; it should be noticed that Thomas Arden, the eldest son of Sir John, and cousin-german of Robert, obtained a grant of the manor of Brerewood Hall, and the rectory of Curdworth, in the county of Warwick (Esc. 5 Eliz. p. 1, n. 2); and though this grant was made by Henry the Eighth in the thirty-first year of his reign (1539), it also might have been in the contemplation of the heralds, or rather of those from whom they received their instructions, who might not have minutely attended to the date.

Note return to page 35 1An account of the extremely hard usage which this gentleman received from Leicester, may be found in Peck's Desid. Cur, 4to. p. 579.

Note return to page 36 2Itin. vi. 20.

Note return to page 37 3These arms have not hitherto been discovered thus impaled; they might, notwithstanding, have been thus impaled in a ring or seal used by our poet, and now lost; or this might have been his object in 1596 and 1599, and that object have been afterwards neglected.

Note return to page 38 3Dugdale's Antiq. of Warwicksh. p. 475, edit. 1656.

Note return to page 39 4“Necnon de uno burgagio jacen. in strata vocat. Church strete in Stratford predict. in quo J&obar;hes Ashurste modo inhabitat uno capite inde abuttan. versus Episcopum Wigorn. ex parte occidentali, et alio capite inde abuttan. versus J&obar;hem Hubaude ex partie orientali: necnon de alio burgagio jacen. in Church strete, in quo J&obar;hes Boleyn modo inhabitat, uno capite inde abuttan. versus D&obar;m. Episcopum Wigorn. ex parte occidentali, et alio capite inde abuttan. versus viam regiam vocat. Church Strete.” Esc. 13 Hen VIII. p. unica, n. 140.

Note return to page 40 5This appears, from a loose paper which I found in the chamber of Stratford, containing the proceedings of a court leet in the time of Henry VIII. “Stratf. Cur. vis fran. pleg. cum cur. dni J&obar;hs gracia Dei Episc. Wigorn. ibid. tent. quarto die mensis Octobris anno regni Henrici octavi, &c. tricesimo tertio,” [1542], &c.

Note return to page 41 6Pat. 3 Ed. VI. p. 3.

Note return to page 42 7Ibid. p. 9.

Note return to page 43 8Pat. 7 Ed. VI. p. 8.

Note return to page 44 9Pat. 1 Mar. p. 5.

Note return to page 45 13 & 4 Ph. & Mar. p. 12.

Note return to page 46 2Pat. 4. Eliz. p. 4.

Note return to page 47 3Pat. 33 Eliz. p. 3.

Note return to page 48 4From the following extract from the Court of Augmentations made by Mr. Thomas Greene, formerly town-clerk of Stratford, their revenues do not appear to have been adequate to their expenditure. “The College of Stretford. Founded by John Stretford for a Warden, 5 preests, and 4 choristers, and endowed with other lands by Collingwood, value 127l. 18s. 9d. “Resolut. 20s. 3d. In annuities & fees 13l. In stipends to divers ministers, videlicet to the Warden for his Stipend yerely, 68l. 5s. 2d. to other ministers for their stipend & dyet, 64l. 18s. 8d. Sum 147l. 4s. Remt. Nill. quia in surplusag. 19l. 5s. 3d.”

Note return to page 49 5Antiq. of Warwicksh. p. 482. Any small foundation for a select number of priests and choristers, was formerly called a college, according to the maxim of the civil law, “tres faciunt collegium.” So in Leland's Itin. iv. 165, a: “On the north syde of St. James [in Warwick] is a pretty Colledge, havinge a 4 preists that sing in St. James Chappell, and they belonge to a fraternity of our lady and St. George.”—Again, ibid. “The suburbe withoute the west gate is called the West end—There was a Colledge of Blacke Frires in the north part of this suburbe.” Again: “There is a suburbe in the north syde of Warwike, and therein is the chapell of St. Michaell, where sometyme was a College et confratres; but now it is taken as a free chapell.”

Note return to page 50 6“The church of Stratford now standinge, as it is supposed, was renewed in building by John de Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the begining of the raigne of K. E. 3, whoe was borne at Stratforde, whereof he tooke his name. He made this of a simple paroche church a collegiate church, augmenting it with some landes. “There be belonginge to the Colledge 4 preists, 3 clarkes, 4 choristers, and there mansion house is an ancient peice of worke of square stone, hard by the cemitarye. The church is dedicated to the Trinitye.” Itin. iv. p. 1, fol. 167, a.

Note return to page 51 7Pat. 18 Eliz. p. 12.

Note return to page 52 8Dugdale's Antiq. of Warwicksh. p. 476.

Note return to page 53 9The bailiffs of Stratford are mentioned in a patent, 5 Ed. III. p. 3, m. 10.

Note return to page 54 1This bridge, consisting of fourteen arches, was built by Sir Hugh Clopton, Knight, in the time of Henry the Seventh.

Note return to page 55 2Thomas Throckmorton, Esqre. Steward of Stratford, was admitted into the Guild of St. Mary, 9 Ed. IV. 1469. Registr. Gild. fol. 92, a.

Note return to page 56 3The warrant for the grant of this charter is inserted in the Appendix.

Note return to page 57 4The other aldermen named in the original charter, were Richard Lord, Hugh Reynolds, William Smythe, Thomas Philippes, Thomas Wynfeeld, John Jefferies, Thomas Dixon, George Whatley, Henry Biddle, William Whatley, Robert Mors, Robert Pratt, and Adrian Quiney. The original burgesses are not named in the charter; but from another instrument in the archives of Stratford, I find that about two years afterwards (April 20, 1555), the burgesses were, then, John Burbadge, William Mynsker, Daniel Phillips, Robert Perrot, Laurence Peynton, Roger Sadler, Humphry Plymley, Richard Harrington, William Smith, corvizar, Francis Harbadge, George Turnor, Richard Symmonds, John Wheler, and Lewis ap Williams.

Note return to page 58 5Pat. 7 Ed. VI. p. 13.

Note return to page 59 6Antecedent to this grant, the revenues of the borough of Stratford appear to have been extremely small: for in the earliest rent-roll of the borough, which I have found, after the grant of this charter, that for the year 1563, their whole revenue, exclusive of the tithes of the late college, amounted only to 52l. Os. 7d. The personal property of the guild, about seventy years before its dissolution, is ascertained by the curious inventory, which, being too long for this place, may be found in the Appendix. The guild, it should be observed, was governed by eight aldermen, chosen annually out of their own body, and a master, who was also elected annually, by the aldermen. The master, together with two proctors, elected by him and the aldermen, had the entire management of the lands and revenues of the guild. The famous lawyer, Littleton, was admitted a member of this fraternity in 1479, 19 Ed. IV. Registr. Gild. fol. 110, b.

Note return to page 60 7He was chosen a burgess of Stratford about the same time as John Tayler, a shearman or cloth-worker of that town, and served with him the office of chamberlain in the year 1562. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to suppose them to have been nearly of the same age. In the register of the proceedings of the corporation in the Council Chamber, 30 June, 34 Eliz. (1592), Mr. Tayler is called old John Tayler; and in the account of Henry Wilson, Chamberlain, made 24 January, 34 Eliz. (1593–4), he is denominated Father Tayler: “Receaved of Father Tayler for Michael Shakleton, iijs. iiijd.” This was then, as now, in the country, a common appellation for old men. So, in another account made by George Badger for the year 1596: “Item, Receaved of Father Degge for his entrance into the Almshouse, vis. viiid.” So also in the register of the parish of Stratford, I find among the burials in 1587, March 23, “Jone, wife to Father Bell of Bishopton.”

Note return to page 61 8Rowe's Life of Shakspeare.

Note return to page 62 9Joan, the eldest daughter of John Shakspeare, was baptized at Stratford on September 15, 1558; and though her burial is not recorded in the register (perhaps from her dying in some other place), she probably died before April, 1569, under nine years of age; because another daughter was then baptized by the same name. Although parents sometimes gave the same Christian name to two children living at the same time, the other circumstances attending this child, render it improbable that should have been the case in this instance. Margaret Shakspeare was baptized Dec. 2, 1562, and was buried April 13, 1563; and Anne was baptized Sept. 28, 1571, and was buried April 4, 1579.

Note return to page 63 1“Stratford Burgus. Ad aulam ibid. tent. xxixo die Marcii, Ao. regni d&nbar;æ nostræ Elizabethæ, &c. xxivo. [1592]: “A Note of Mr. Okers money, and to whom yt is lent; and the names of their sureties, and also of Bakers money. “Bakers Money. “Thomes Fourde, Shoemaker, vli. for ls. and Henrie Rogers, butcher, and John Shaxspere, shuemaker, his suerties. “Okers Money. “Philippus Grene in xli. for vli. Henrie Rogers, butcher, and John Shaxspere, shuemaker, his suerties. “John Fisher, shuemaker, in xli. for vli. and Humphrey Wheler, and Humphrey Cowper, shoemakers, his suerties. “Ad aulam ibid. tent. xxxo. die Junii, ao. 1592: “At this Hall John Shackspere, Master of the companie of Shuemakers, paid to the same Henrie Wilson, the moitie of Richard Fletcher the sadler his freedome, xxs. which saied xxs. is due to the chamber, and so paied.” On the 6th day of Sept. 1586, “George Badger, Roger Welshe, John Shaxspere and Humphry Brace, were elected constables for the ensuing year, and John Shaxspere and Humphrey Brace were sworn.” These two persons again served the same office in the following year, together with Edward Bushell and David Jones. Humphrey Brace was a grocer and mercer at Stratford, and died possessed of a good property in the year 1591–2, as appears by his will, which is in the Prerogative Office. “Burgus Stratford. At a Hall there holden the xviith. daie of Februarie, anno 1590o...... Thomas Okers money was delivered to the persons whose names are underwritten. “John Shaxspere vli. his sureties Richard Sponer and Robert Yonge.” Registr. Burg. Stratford. A.

Note return to page 64 2The same distinction is always preserved in the parish register between Mr. Thomas Reynolds, a gentleman of Old Stratford, with whom our poet was acquainted, and to whose son he bequeathed a legacy, and Thomas Reynolds, a tradesman of Stratford. The children of the tradesman are uniformly described as the children of Thomas Reynolds, those of our poet's friend as the children of Mr. Thomas Reynolds. Thus I find in the register: “1580, Jan. 26, baptized Margaret, baster daughter to Thomas Reynolds. “1581, Nov. 8, bapt. Jane, daughter to Mr. Thomas Reynolds. “1581, Feb. 25, bapt. William, son to Thomas Reynolds. “1582, Nov. 25, bapt. Thomas, son to Mr. Thomas Reynolds. “1582–3, Jan. 22, bapt. Annis, daughter to Thomas Reynolds. “1583, Nov. 21, bapt. Henry, son to Mr. Thomas Reynolds. “1589, Nov. 22, bapt. Mary, daughter to Mr. Thomas Raynolds.” So, in the account of Thomas Goodwynne, Chamberlain, for the year 1582: “Receaved for the bell [i. e. for the bell's being rung] for Thomas Reynhold's child, iiijd. “Receaved for the bell for Mr. Thomas Reynold's child, iiijd.”

Note return to page 65 3In an accompt made by William Wilson, one of the chamberlains of the borough of Stratford, on the 26th day of Jan. 1581, stating his several receipts and disbursements from Michaelmas, 1579, to Michaelmas, 1580, is the following article: “Receaved of Thomas Asplyn for his freedome, by the hands of Thomas Roberts, and Thomas Swanne, Wardeins of shoemakers, xxs.” Registr. Burg. Stratford. A. Thomas Roberts, as appears by the register of the parish of Stratford, was buried there, Sept. 11, 1583.

Note return to page 66 4“Stratford, Burgus. Ad aulam ibm. tent. ixo die Januarii anno regni d&nbar;æ Elizabethe, &c. xxijo [1589–90.] “At this hall Mr. Abraham Sturley hath delivered three several obligations to the use of the children of one Thomas Roberts deceased; viz. one bande made to Thomas Roberts, one of the sonnes of Thomas Roberts deceased, of fyftie pounds, wherein Richard Masters of Milverton yeoman and John Shaxpere of Stratford, corvizer, stand bounde for the bredinge of the seyd Thomas Roberts, and the payment of xxxijli. according to the condycions of the seyd bande, which bande berithe date quarto die Octobris anno tricesimo Elizabethæ reginæ [1588], and one other bande beringe date tertio die Octobris, ao xxxo Elizabethe Regine of fyftie pounds made from John Laurence of Studley, husbandman, and William Broukeley of Studley, tanner, to John Roberts, one other of the sonnes of the seyd Thomas Roberts, for the payment of xxvili. accordinge to the condicions of the same bande; and also one other bande from John Shaxpere of Stratford, corvizer, and Edward Bushell de eisdem, wolsted weaver, in lxli. for the bredinge of Richard Roberts, the youngest sonne of the seyd Thomas, and also for payment of suche money as ys conteyned in the condycions of the same bande, beringe date tertio die Octobris ao xxxo E. Regine.” Registr. Burg. Straf. A. From a preceding entry in the same book, it appears to have been customary for the guardians of infants to reposite bonds belonging to their wards in the chamber of Stratford, for security.

Note return to page 67 5Margery appears to have been a common name in this family; for I find that Richard Smith was married to Margery Roberts, Nov. 28, 1598.

Note return to page 68 6See p. 52, n. 1.

Note return to page 69 7Joan, daughter to Philip Greene, who, as appears from the parish register, was baptized at Stratford, June 27, 1569, was probably the second wife of John Shakspeare, corvizer.

Note return to page 70 8Philip Greene was married to Ursula Burbadge, Oct. 14, 1565. He died at Stratford about ten months after our poet, and was buried there Feb. 26, 1616–17.

Note return to page 71 9In addition to these concurring circumstances, all tending to prove that John Shakspeare, the shoemaker, was the person who married Margery Roberts in 1584, and by a subsequent wife was the father of Philip, Humphrey, and Ursula Shakspeare; it may be further observed, that when Thomas Roberts, already mentioned, obtained, from the corporation of Stratford a lease of his house in Bridge-street, which is dated September 24, 1578, Thomas Shaxpere, a shoemaker, also, I believe, was an attesting witness to the bond then executed for the performance of covenants; and an indorsement on the back of that lease, made some time about the year 1600, proves that this was the house in which John Shakspeare, the shoemaker, lived after the death of Thomas Roberts, and while it was the property of his children.

Note return to page 72 1By the rules of the various companies of the several trades then carried on there, those persons who were foreigners, that is, not born in the borough, and wished to set up any trade there, were obliged to pay a much higher sum for their freedom than the natives. In “the Declaration of the Constitution and Ordinances of Skinners and Taylors,” which was signed and sealed March 2, 1585, and is yet preserved in the chamber of Stratford; the seventh and eighth rules in substance are, that no foreigner or person born out of the borough, who hath not served an apprenticeship within it, shall be allowed to set up or exercise the trade of a skinner or taylor, unless he hath served an apprenticeship for seven years in some city, borough, or town corporate and if he hath so served, he may be admitted to his freedom on paying 3l. 6s. 8d. Every person born within the borough, but having served out of it, may be admitted on paying ten shillings; and every person born within the borough, and having likewise served his time there, may be admitted on paying three shillings and fourpence. Similar regulations were made by other companies; though the terms of admission, both to natives and foreigners, in the different companies, were various.

Note return to page 73 2In “the Accompte of Thomas Rogers, one of the Chamberlens, &c. made the thyrde of October 1589, which he then yielded up in respect he was elected to be Mr. Bayleefe for the year followinge, ao regni Eliz. xxxio.” the following persons are specified as living in Bridge-street, many of whom appear to have been shoemakers: [Table: 2Kb] “The Rents receaved as followeth, for iij quarters of a year. Bridg Street. Whole Rent. Richard Baylis vs. vis. viijd. Thomas West vs. vis. viijd. Robert Wyllson xxvs. xxxiijs. ivd. Mr. Barber xvis. iijd. xxis. viijd. [This is inserted by mistake, for he lived in Church-street.] Haray fylde viis. vid. xs. Jhon Shackspeare ixs. xiis. Ryc. Aynge xvs. xxs. Wyll&mbar; Greenwaye xxiijs. xxxs. viijd. Francis Smith xs. xiijs. iiijd. Arthur Cawdrey xxvs. xxxiijs. iiijd.” In the accounts of 1593 and 1594 the names of the persons who held houses from the corporation are not specified: but a subsequent “Accompt of Richard Ange and Abraham Sturley. Chamberleyns, from the xxth day of December 1594, for one whole yeare then next followinge,” furnishes us with a complete list of the tenants who held houses from the corporation, and the rents they paid.

Note return to page 74 3see p. 15, n. 8.

Note return to page 75 4Ibid.

Note return to page 76 5Sarah, the wife of Humphrey Shakspeare, of Lapworth, died at Rowington in the last century, Oct. 2, 1720, at the age of eighty-two. Her husband Humphrey, who died at Rowington, in 1729, is thus described (“of Lapworth”), both in the register of Rowington, and on his wife's tombstone in the churchyard there. If we suppose him to have been only as old as his wife, then he must have been born in 1638: consequently at least ninety-one when he died; and he might have been either the son or grandson of that Humphrey Shakspeare who was baptized at Stratford, May 24, 1590; and consequently either grandson or great grandson of John Shakspeare, the shoemaker. “John, the son of Humphrey Shakspeare, of Lapworth,” was buried at Rowington, Nov. 14, 1693, as appears by the register of that parish.

Note return to page 77 6I say “probably,” because we have no direct evidence for this fact. The Rev. Joseph Greene, who was master of the free-school at Stratford, several years ago made some extracts from the register of that parish, which he afterwards gave to the late James West, Esq. They were imperfect, and in other respects not quite accurate. In the margin of this paper Mr. Greene has written, opposite the entry relative to our poet's baptism, “Born on the 23d;” but for this, as I conceive, his only authority was the inscription on Shakspeare's tomb—“Obiit a&nbar;o Doi. 1616, ætatis 53, die 23 Ap.” which, however, renders the date here assigned for his birth sufficiently probable. The omitting to mention the day of the child's birth in baptismal registers, is a great defect, as the knowledge of this fact is often of importance.

Note return to page 78 7He died at Stratford the following year, and was buried there, June 21, 1565. The successive vicars of Stratford in our poet's time were, John Breechgirdle, 27 Feb. 1560–61. &lblank; Hygford, 1563. [Qr.] Henry Heicroft, Jan. 1, 1569–70. Richard Barton, Feb. 17, 1584. John Bramhall, 1590. Richard Bifield, Jan. 23, 1596. Thomas Rogers, 1604. Thomas Wilson, May 22, 1619.

Note return to page 79 8See Verstegan's Restitution of Decayed Intelligence, 4to. 1605; Epistle to the English Nation, in marg. “It is often seen in Germanie, that either godfather [he means each of the two godfathers] at christning giveth his name to his godsonne, and thereof it cometh that many have two proper names, besydes their surname.”

Note return to page 80 9Three of Sir Francis Bacon's godsons, to whom he leaves legacies, were christened after him. See his will.

Note return to page 81 1In an ancient account-book which belonged to the wardens of the bridge at Stratford, before the charter of incorporation was granted, I find various articles which ascertain the predilection of our poet's countrymen to the patron saint of England. In an account made by Richard Cotton and Thomas Gilbard, bridge-wardens, 23 March, 34 Henry VIII. [1542–3] is this item: “Item, payd Whitley for kepynge the Alter, iijs. iijd.” and in a subsequent account, evidently relating to the same matter, 36 Henry VIII. “Item, payd to Thomas Whitley for kepynge St. George Alter, viijd.” “Item, payd for scowring St. George harnes, [armour,] ijs. 10d.” “Primo anno Mariæ reginæ, &c. videlicet decimo quarto die Aprilis, Richard Pers and John Tayler, wardens: “Item, payd for dressing the Dragon, and for bering the Dragon, and werynge Sent George harnes on holy thursday, ijs. viijd. Payd for gune powder, iiijd. Payd for scowring Sent George harnes, ijs.” In the account of George Whatley and Robert Pratt, bridge-wardens, 8 April, 1 Ed. VI. 1547: “Payd for scowring Sent George harnes, ijs. viijd. “Item, to Walter for ridynge Sent George, vid. “Item to hym that bare the Dragon, iiijd.”. In an account made by John Bell and Edward West, 2 & 3 Ph. & Mar. April 23, 1556: “Payd to 2 men for berynge the Dragon and Sent George harnes, ijs.” The same custom was long kept up; for in the accompt of Robert Smart and William Wilson, chamberlains, from Michaelmas, 1587, to Michaelmas, 1579, I find— “Pd to William Evans [a smith] for scowring of the George Armour, the vith daye of June, iiijd.”

Note return to page 82 2In the year 1563, between the 1st of August and the last day of December, 20,136 persons died of the plague in London. It broke out again with great violence in August, 1564.

Note return to page 83 3From the two hundred and thirty-seven inhabitants of Stratford, who, it appears from the register, were buried in this period, twenty-one are to be subducted, who, it may be presumed, would have died in six months in the ordinary course of nature; for it the five preceding years, reckoning according to the style of tha time, from March 25, 1559, to March 25, 1564, two hundred and twenty-one persons were buried at Stratford, of whom two hundren and ten were townsmen: that is, forty-two died each year, at an average.

Note return to page 84 4Such appears to have been the number of inhabitants at that time, calculating one in thirty-five to have died annually. I suppose one in thirty-five to have then died in a year on account of the superior mortality in former times from the small-pox, and the ill treatment of other disorders: one in forty would at present be a more just calculation. In the parish of Bookham, in the county of Surrey, in the neighbourhood of which I passed the summer of the year 1788, the inhabitants were numbered, and found to be five hundred. In the preceding year there died there, only eleven persons, that is, one in forty-six. In a country parish in Hampshire, the annual proportion of deaths for ninety years previous to 1774, was found to be one in fifty. See Howlet's Essay on the Population of England and Wales, p. 11. The baptisms and burials at Stratford during the five years mentioned in the preceding note, compared with the baptisms and burials during five years from 1783 to 1788, confirm the calculation that has been made. The baptisms from March 25, 1559, to March 25, 1564, were two hundred and seventy-six; i. e. fifty-five per ann. at an average The baptisms from Jan. 1, 1783, to Dec. 31, 1787, were four hundred and seventy-four: i. e. ninety-five per ann. at an average; but of Stratfordians probably only eighty-five. The burials in five years from March 25, 1559, to March 25, 1564, were, of Stradfordians, two hundred and ten, i. e. forty-two per ann.; which, multiplied by thirty-five, gives 1470, the number of inhabitants stated in the text. If we multiply the average number of the annual baptisms during the same period (i. e. fifty-five) by twenty-six, the number of inhabitants will be found to have been 1430. The burials in five years from Jan. 1, 1783, to Dec. 31, 1787, were four hundred and nine; i. e. per ann. eighty-two; but of Stratfordians only seventy; which number, multiplied by forty, makes the inhabitants of Stratford on Dec. 31, 1787, 2800, nearly double the number in our author's time. In April 1765, they were numbered, and were then found to be 2287. In 1730, the houses in Stratford (including the old town) were four hundred and fifty-seven. If we reckon five to each house, the inhabitants were then 2285. By the returns made to Parliament in 1811, it appears that the inhabitants in Stratford amounted to 2842, whereof 1340 were males, and 1502 were females, and that the inhabited houses were 548, and the uninhabited 13.

Note return to page 85 5Hor. lib. iii. ode iv.

Note return to page 86 6Jacob's Lives of the Poet's 8vo. 1720. Pope's Edition of Shakspeare's Plays, 4to. 1725. Theobald's Edition, 8vo, 1733. General Dictionary, folio, 1739. Hanmer's Edition of Shakspeare's Plays, 4to. 1744. Warburton's Edition, 8vo. 1747. Illustrious Heads, 1748. Cibber's Lives of the Poets, 12mo. 1753. Biographia Britannica, folio, 1747. Biographical Dictionary, 8vo. 1760. Biographia Dramatica, 1780, &c. &c.

Note return to page 87 7So Rowe's second edition. In the first, “that little Latin he was master of.”

Note return to page 88 8Rowe's Life of Shakspeare.

Note return to page 89 9These facts are: 1. That he was the son of John Shakspeare, and born at Stratford, in April, 1564. 2. That he died there in 1616.—These are both true, and were furnished by the parish register. 3. That his father had ten children. 4. That his father was a woolman. 5. That when the poet came to London “he was received into the company of actors then in being,” as if there was then but one company. 6. That he was but an indifferent actor. 7. That Falstaff was originally called Oldcastle, and that the poet was obliged to change the name of that character. 8. That lord Southampton gave him 1000l. to complete a purchase. 9. That he left three daughters. 10. That he was driven to take shelter in London in consequence of stealing deer from Sir Thomas Lucy's park. The preceding eight facts will all be shown to be false. 11. That he introduced Ben Jonson to the stage, may certainly be considered as extremely doubtful. This tale probably took its rise from Shakspeare's having assisted Jonson in writing Sejanus. In the printed play, however, the author omitted whatever our poet had contributed to that piece.

Note return to page 90 1See p. 51.

Note return to page 91 2This fact is proved by a deed among the archives of Stratford, which begins thus: “This Indenture made the xxth day of April in the first and second yere of the reigne of Phylip and Mary [1555], by the grace of God kynge and quene, &c. between Willm. Whatley, nowe Justice of the peace, by bely of the burrow of Stratford upon Avon, in the county of Warr. George Whatley, now Justice of ye peace and hye alderman of the same toune, Richard Lord, Wm. Smyth mercer, John Jefferies, Thomas Wynfyld, Thomas Dixon, Thomas Phyllipps, Henry Bydyll, Thomas Gilbard, Robert Mors, Robert Pratt, Raf Cawdrey, and Adrean Quyny, aldermen, John Burbage, William Mynster, Daniel Phyllypps, Robert Perot, Laurence Beynton, Roger Sadler, Humphrey Plymley, Richard Harentone, Wm. Smyth corvizar, Frauncis Harbage, George Turnor, Richard Symons, John Wheler, and Lewes ap Williams, Capital burgesez ther of thone party, and Raf Cawdrey of Stratford aforesaid, Bocher, of the other party: Witnessethe, &c. that the befor named h&ybar; bely, aldermen and capital burgesez, with one assent, consent, agreement, for them & ther successors, have demyzed, graunted, set, and to ferme let, and by theis presents do demyse, graunt, and to ferme let over unto the said Raf Cawdrey, on tenement in Stratford aforsaid, in Burge Street, late in the holdynge of Richard Marchell ther callyd The Aungell,” &c.

Note return to page 92 3Ralph Cawdrey kept a butcher's shop in Stratford so early as 1541. He died in May, 1588. See Mr. Steevens's Advertisement, vol. i. p. 254. I shall in another place* [Subnote: *See Appendix.] have occasion to speak more particularly on this subject, and shall show the sources from whence Mr. Aubrey derived the various and valuable intelligence which he communicated to Antony Wood in the latter part of the last century, while that laborious antiquary was employed in compiling his Athenæ Oxonienses. At present, it is only necessary to observe, that if the representation attempted to be given of this ingenious and unfortunate gentleman, were just and well founded; if it were true that every man who is weak in one place must necessarily be weak in all; that all those persons who in the last century were idle enough to put their faith in judicial astrology, and to give credit to stories of preternatural appearances of the dead, were fools, and their judgment or testimony of no value on any subject whatsoever, however unconnected with these weaknesses; then in this large list of ninnies must we class, with Mr. Aubrey, the accomplished and literate Charles the First, the grave and judicious Clarendon, the witty Duke of Buckingham, the fertile and ingenious Dryden, and many other names of equal celebrity. They must all “bench by his side,” and must be set down as persons incapable of forming a true judgment on any matter whatsoever presented to them, and wholly unworthy of credit.

Note return to page 93 4Restal's Termes de la Ley, in v. From the following entry it appears that he was fined while invested with this office, for three non-attendances in the bailiff's court, which was held once a fortnight. “Stratford Burgus. Curia de recordo ibm tent. secundo die Junii, anno regnorum Philippi et Mariæ tertio et quarto [2 June, 1557]: “viiid. de J&obar;he Shakspere, uno testator [tentator] servicii burgi pd. quia not venit ad exequend. officium suum &pab; iii Cur. Id. in mia. [miserecordia].” For the oath and duties of an ale-taster, see Kitchen on the Jurisdiction of Courts Leet, p. 96.

Note return to page 94 5The oath of an affeeror was this:—“You shall swear, that you will truly and indifferently tax, assess, and affeer all such amerciaments as are presented at this court; wherein you shall spare no man for love, favour, affection, or corruption, nor raise nor inhance upon any man, of malice, more grievous amerciaments than shall be thought reasonable, according to the quality of the offence, and the faults committed, and not otherwise. So help you God,” &c. Greenwood on Courts, p. 346. In some cases the jury of the leet ascertained the amerciaments themselves. So in the proceedings of the leet at Stratford, 30th Sept. 1558: “Mem. yt the xii men did amerce the offenders, and no Ferars [Affeerors] chosen.” That they had a right to do so, Sir Edward Coke has shown, 11 Rep. Godfrey's case.

Note return to page 95 6See Appendix.

Note return to page 96 7There were at that time four vacancies of the burgesses then assembled. John Lewes was the last; he being the last person who had been elected a burgess; and I find that at a subsequent period, a few years afterwards (Sept. 6, 1564), the name of John Shakspeare stands the second in the list of burgesses immediately following that of John Lewes; so that it is clear that Shakspeare, together with John Taylor, William Smyth, haberdasher, and John Jones, whose names immediately follow in that list, was elected a burgess in the latter end of the year 1557, or early in 1558, to fill up the four vacancies already mentioned.

Note return to page 97 8William Tyler was an ale-taster in 1557, and, like John Shakspeare, fined for non-attendance: Richard Hill executed the same office in 1555, William Perrot in 1558, and Thomas Dixon, otherwise Waterman, in 1559. All these persons were soon afterwards aldermen. William Tyler was bailiff in 1563, Richard Hill in 1564. Francis Harbage was constable in 1555, and bailiff in 1557; and Robert Perrot, who was bailiff in 1558, executed the office of constable in 1554, together with Adrian Queeny, who was bailiff in 1559. Humphry Plymley, who was bailiff in 1562, served the office of constable with John Shakspeare in 1558; and William Smith, haberdasher, and William Tyler, who has been already mentioned, together with John Taylor, were joined with him as constables in 1559.

Note return to page 98 9See the Appendix.

Note return to page 99 1Registr. Burg. Stratford. A.

Note return to page 100 2Ibid.

Note return to page 101 3Armiscotte, in Worcestershire, was probably the place here meant. I suppose Arscotte was the usual pronunciation. In the 6th of Elizabeth I find a suit by Richard Hannes of Armyscotte, against John Lord, of Stratford. Arlescote, is a small village near Edghill, in the hundred of Kineton, in Warwickshire; I can find neither Arscote, nor Alescote, in Worcestershire.

Note return to page 102 4Barry, Nebule of six argent and gules, on a chief of the second, a lion passant or.

Note return to page 103 5Thomas Nichols, Gilbert Bradley, John Davies, Richard Radman, John Coxe, and—Hyll, were all glovers at Stratford nearly at this period. One or two of them, however, may have been somewhat later. From an accompt made by Richard Hathaway and Wm. Smith, in 1618, it appears that the following seven persons were then glovers in Stratford: George Perry, jun. John Perkins, Henry Hill, Richard Nicholls, John Cawdrey, Augustine Boyse, Michael Hare. Besides these there were at least three other glovers then residing there, viz. John Smith, Robert Butler, and William Shaw, elder brother of Julius Shaw.

Note return to page 104 6“&lblank; their fingers must be deckt with gold, silver, and precious stones, their handes covered with their sweete washed gloves, imbroidered with gold, silver, and what not.” Stubbes's Anatomie of Abuses, 8vo. 1583. “Here, hold this glove, this milk-white cheveril glove,   “Not quaintly overwrought with curious knots;   “Not deck'd with golden spangs, nor silver spots, “Yet wholesome for the hand, as thou shalt prove.” Cynthia, a collection of Sonnets, by Richard Barnefield, 8vo. 1595, Son. xiv. “After that they presented to his Majesty a Greek Testament in folio....and two pair of Oxford Gloves with deep fringe of gold, the turnovers being wrought with pearl; the cost 6l. a pair.” Account of King James's Reception at Oxford in 1605, Winwood's Mem. ii. 140. In the wardrobe account of Prince Henry, eldest son of James I. dated Sept. 28, 1607, the following articles occur: “One pair of gloves lined through with velvett, and laid with three gold laces, and gold fringe curled, lxs. “Two pair of Cordevant gloves, perfumed and laid with broad silver lace, and fringe curled, at 32s. lxiiijs. “Four pair of staggs leather gloves perfumed and fringed with gold and silver fringe at 16s. [per pair] lxiiijs. “Six pair of plain gloves with coloured tops being very well perfumed, at 6s. [per pair] 36s. “Six pair plain gloves with coloured tops, and some white tops at 3s. “Twelve pair fine gloves stiched, the fingers and the tops white silk and silver, and some trymmed with taffata and reben, at 11s.” Archæolog. xi. 93. In Chapman's All Fools, a comedy, 1606, gloves from half a crown to twenty crowns a pair are mentioned.

Note return to page 105 7In the Manuscript Diary of Edward Alleyn, the player, preserved at Dulwich College, is the following article: “1618. Jan. 1. Given Mr. Austin a pair of gloves, 1l. 10s. 0d.”

Note return to page 106 8Stowe's Annals, published by E. Howes, fol. 1615, p. 868. The paragraph in question was an interpolation by the editor.

Note return to page 107 9Murden's State Papers, p. 778.

Note return to page 108 1Florio's First Fruites, 4to. 1578.

Note return to page 109 2Gloves as sweet as damask roses, Masks for faces, and for noses;.... Come, buy,” &c. Winter's Tale, Act IV. Sc. III.

Note return to page 110 3Strype's Hist. of London.

Note return to page 111 4This appears from various inventories of the effects of dealers in leather at Stratford.

Note return to page 112 5“At a hall holden in oure garden, the 30 daye of Auguste, ao. 1564, money pd towards the relief of the poure. Mr Baylie, iiis. iiijd. Mr Alderman, iis. viiid. Mr Smyth, iis. vid. Mr Jefferies, xiid. Mr Cawdre, iis. Mr Adrian Quincy, iis. vid. Mr Lewis, iis. [i. e. Lewis ap Williams] John Weler, iis. id. Robert Bratte, vid. Robert Parot, iis. vid. Mr Botte, iiiis. John Taylor, viiid. John Shackspere, xiid. John Lewes, vid. John Sadler, viid. John Aylmer, xiid. Willm Tyler, xiid. Wm Smyth, haberdasher, xiid. Wm Smyth, corvesar, iiid. Jhon Belle, xiid. Wm Brace, ijs. Thomas Dixun, viiid. Ths Dyer, ijs. Richd Symens, viis. iiijd. On the 6th of Sep. the bailif and six aldermen gave twelve pence each “to the relief of those that were visited;” Mr. Quiney, 1s. 6d.; Jn. Shakspeare, John Sadler, Wm. Smyth, haberdasher, Jn. Botte, and Jn. Taylor, 6d. each; and Rob. Brat, 4d.; and on the 27th of Sept. another donation nearly in the same proportion. Registr. Burg. Stratford. A.

Note return to page 113 6Humphrey Plymley died in such poor circumstances in April, 1594, that the sum total of his effects, as appears from his inventory, amounted only to 6l. 15s. 2d.

Note return to page 114 7Registr. Burg. Stratford. A.

Note return to page 115 8“Accompt of money levied xio. die Marcii Ao. regine Elizabeth xxio. [1578–9]: by John Smith and William Wilson: High strete warde xls. ijd. Ship strete warde xxxis. vid. Henley strete warde xxxis. viijd. Sum vli. iijs. viijd. whereof disbursed iijli. xis. xid. so remaneth xxis. vijd. wch was payd to Mr Barber, and not yet accounted for. Accompt of Richard Court and James Salisbury, for Wood strete warde. Received xlis. viijd. Churche strete warde xliiijs. viijd. Bridge strete warde xxxijs. xd. Sum vli. xixs. ijd. not accompted for; remaneth. which was payd to Mr. Barber; whereof leid out by him for iij corselets iijl. xijs. for iij calivers with the furniture xls. for the cariage of them vis. iijd. Sum vl. xviijs. iijd. Remaneth xxixs. ijd. dew by Mr Barber. These somes are unpayd and unaccompted for. John Eonge iijd. George Badger xiid. Thomas Ward vid. Mr. Shaxpeare iijs. iijd. Mr Nashe iijs. iiijd. Mr Reynolds iijs. iiijd. William Brokes ijs. Bazill Burdit iiijd. Hugh Pyggyn vid. Widow Bell iiijd. “Richard Court ys to accompt for money collected by him for the hygh waye.” I am aware that among the above defaulters, are some persons who were probably in easy circumstances; but though their neglect may not have arisen from want of money, the other proofs which have been given relative to the straitened circumstances of John Shakspeare, warrant us in supposing that he was a defaulter, from its not being convenient to him to pay the rate imposed. The following extract from the register of the Bailiff's Court is also observable. “Stratford Burgus. Curia dnæ Reginæ ibm tent. xiii. die Januarii, anno regni &c. vicesimo octavo [1585–6]. “Ad hunc diem Servien. ad Clavam burgi predict. retorn. pr. [præceptum] de distr. eis direct. versus Johem Shackspere ad sect. Johis Browne, qd. predict. Johes Shackspere nihil habet unde distr. potest levari. Ideo fiat Ca. [Capias] versus Johem Shackspere ad sect. Johis Browne, si petatur.” On the 2d of March following an alias Capias was issued against him.

Note return to page 116 1“Debtes which are owing unto me Roger Sadler. “Imprimis, of Mr. John Combes, the elder, for a horse, 3l. “Item, of the same J. C., due to me by bond at Christmas next, 20l. “Item, of Richard Hathaway, alias Gardyner, of Shottery, 6l. 8s. 4d. “Item, of Edmond Lambart* [Subnote: *Mr. Edmond Lambart, who it appears had entered into a security for John Shakspeare to the amount of five pounds, and had also furnished him with forty pounds on a mortgage of his estate, lived, as we have already seen, at Barton on the Heath, in Warwickshire, where he died, according to his son's account, about the year 1586. He was perhaps a relation of Mary Shakspeare; for her mother, Agnes Arden, left a legacy to “Joan Lambard,” who might have been the wife of Edmond. That Mr. Lambart was obliged to pay this debt for Mr. John Shakspeare, may be inferred from the statement made by Shakspeare himself in the bill which he filed against his son. See Appendix. The other friend of our poet's father, here mentioned, who, according to the mode of that time is familiarly called Cornish, was perhaps the son of Walter Cornish, who lived in Stratford, in Wood-street, as appears from the following entry in an account book of the bridge-wardens of Stratford: “Anno regni regis Henrici Octavi decimo sexto. “Item the saide Bruge-wardens lafte in the box at their departyng [a blank here in the original] the which was geven by the hole consent of the honesty of Stratford to the reparation of the tenement in Woode Streete in the tenure of Walter Cornyshe.”] , and Cornishe, for the debt of Mr. John Shacksper, 5l.”

Note return to page 117 2This grant was made by Robert Cook, Clarencieux; and if it was made to John Shakspeare whilst he was bailiff, it must have been made between Michaelmas, 1568, and Michaelmas, 1569, which was twenty-seven years at least before these notes were written. In the exemplification of 1599, the heralds expressly say that John Shakspeare obtained a grant of arms while he was bailiff.

Note return to page 118 3This also, as appears from the foregoing note, is a great inaccuracy. “Twenty-six or twenty-seven years past” would have been nearer the truth.

Note return to page 119 4Vincent, 157, No. 24.—A gentleman of worship was the phrase of the day, denoting a person of a respectable situation; if not wealthy, yet at least in easy circumstances.

Note return to page 120 5W. Z. p. 274. “The Answer of William Dethick, Garter, principal king of arms, to two matters, among others, whereof he was accused by some of the officers, whereof information was heard the 1st day of May before the Right Hon. Henry Lord Howard [Qr. Lord Henry Howard, afterwards Earl of Northampton], Sir Robert Sydney, Lord Governor of Flushing, and Sir Edward Dier, Chancellor of the order of the garter, and day given the said Garter to answere hereunto, namely, the 10th of May ensuing, 1602.”

Note return to page 121 6“The Answere of Garter and Clarenciaux, kings of arms, to a libellous scrowle against certen arms supposed to be wrongfully given. “Right Honorable. The exceptions taken in the Scrowle of Arms exhibited, doo concerne these armes granted, or the persons to whom they have been granted. In both, right honble. we hope to satisfy your Lordships.” They then mention twenty-three persons, to whom they were charged with having granted arms improperly, either in respect of the persons, or of the arms granted. Among these is found John Shakspeare; against whom the charge seems to have been twofold; and without doubt, one of the allegations of the “scrowle,” or bill of complaint (which I have in vain endeavoured to recover), was, that he was a tradesman. The answer of the heralds (as far as we are concerned with it) is as follows: “Shakespere. —It may as well be said that Hareley, who beareth gould a bend between two cotizens sables, and all other that [bear] or and argent a bend sables, usurpe the coat of the Lo. Manley. As for the speare in bend, is a patible difference; and the person to whom it was granted hath borne magestracy, and was justice of peace at Stratford upon Avon. He married the daughter and heire of Arderne, and was able to maintain that estate.” I add a few of the other answers, as they serve to confirm what I have suggested, that the occupation of John Shakspeare was one of the grounds of the complaint. “Peake. —Mr. Peake is no grasier, but he is a gentleman of Grayes Inn, well qualified in all good study and learning, and of competent living. But he made good proofe that this coate of arms was borne by his grandfather, John Peake of Thurlangton in Leicestershire,” &c. “Cowley. —This Walter Cowley, who as it cannot be denied to be descended of that house of Cowley in the county of Staff. untruly called Ironmonger, being unwilling to prejudice the heir of that house,” &c. “Whitmore. —Mr. Whitmore a rich marchant of London, born in the countie of Salop, where he possessed fair lands,” &c. “Elkyne. Lee. —Mr. Elkin and Mr. Lee, who are depraved as base tradesmen, it is well knowen they have bin both Sheriffs of London, and Mr. Lee shortlie to be Maior of that cittie: so that it cannot be denied but unto men of that place of civil government, such honor of arms hath bin alwayes allowed in former ages.” MS. in Off. Arm. W. Z. p. 276.

Note return to page 122 7That our author was in London, in May, 1602, is proved by an endorsement on the back of a deed, which will be more particularly mentioned hereafter.

Note return to page 123 8This appears from the chirograph of a fine now before me levied to John Shakspeare by Edmund Hall and Emma his wife, in Michaelmas term, 17 Eliz. [1574] which was obligingly communicated to me by the late Charles Boothby Schrympshire Clopton, Esq. grandson of Sir Hugh Clopton, of Stratford upon Avon. That these two houses were situated in Henley-street, is ascertained by a deed executed in 1639, by our author's granddaughter and her husband, for which I was indebted to the same gentleman. Joan Hart, our poet's sister, to whom by his last will he devised one of them for her life, lived in it in 1639; and Joan Hiccocks, widow, in the other. One of these houses, a few years afterwards (1647), was the Maidenhead Inn, which was then kept by John Rutter, and was, in 1794, the property of Thomas Hart, a butcher in Stratford, the sixth in descent from Joan Hart. The other was a few years ago sold by his father, Thomas Hart, to Mr. John Peyton of the same town.

Note return to page 124 9“Stratford super Avon. Vis fr&abar; Pleg. cum cur. et Session pais tent. ibm. secundo die Octobris annis regnorum Philippi et Marie, Dei gratia, &c. tertio et quarto [October 2, 1556]. “It. pre. [presentant] quod Georgius Turnor alienavit Joh&ebar; Shakespere et hered. suis unum tent. cum gardin. et croft. cum pertinent in Grenehyll stret, tent. de D&nbar;o libe &pab; cart. &pab; redd. inde d&nbar;o &pab; annu vid et sect. cur. et id&ebar; Johes pd. in cur. fecit d&nbar;o fidelitatem &pab; eisdem. “It. quod Edwardus West alienavit pd. eo Johe Shakespere un&ubar; tent. cum gardin. adjacen. in Henley street &pab; redd. inde d&nbar;o &pab; ann. vid. et sect. cur. et id&ebar; Johes pd. in cur. fecit fidelitatem.” Greenhill-street, where one of these houses was situated, was at the end of Rother-street, and seems to have been partaker more of the country than the town; for in the leet, Oct. 1, 1557, I find the following entry: “Raf Hilton [presented] for his wyfe beyng a hedge-breker, and takynge and carryeng away of Nichols hedge in Grenehyll stret. And he stands amersyd.”

Note return to page 125 1In an indenture made June 11, 1581, is (in substance) the following recital: “Whereas William Clopton by a former indenture tripartite dated Dec. 11, 13 Eliz. [1570] and enrolled, between William Clopton and William Sheldon of the first part, Rice Griffin of the second part, and Edward Griffin of the third part, in consideration of 1550l. did fully and absolutely give, grant, bargain and sell to the said Rice Griffin all and singular the lands, tenements, &c. in Bishop Hampton, Stratford upon Avon, Ingon, the old towne of Stratford, &c. in the said former indenture particularly mentioned, that is to say, one leasehold or pasture, &c. .... and also one other freehold with the appurtenants, called or known by the name of Ingon alias Ington meadowe, containing by estimation fourteen acres, be it more or less, then in the occupation of John Shaxpere or his assigns.” Rot. Claus. 23 Eliz. p. 10. This spelling of our author's name, which, as we have already seen, was then very common, ascertains beyond a doubt how it was pronounced in his own time.

Note return to page 126 2This appears from an indenture made May 30, 1568, between William Clopton, Esq. of the one part, and Sir Robert Throckmorton, Sir Thomas Lucy, Knight, Edmond Plowden, Esq. Ralph, son of William Sheldon, Esq. William Underhill, of Newbold Revel, in the county of Warwick, Esq. John Acombis, of Stratford upon Avon, in the said county of Warwick, gentleman (and others), on the other part. Claus. 10 Eliz. p. 13. Ingon meadow was not then in the possession of John Shakspeare.

Note return to page 127 3This meadow, it is observable, is described as “a freehold, with the appurtenances.” See Claus. 13 Eliz. p. 6, and 23 Eliz. p. 10.

Note return to page 128 4See the list of aldermen in a lease made to Ralf Cawdrey in the year 1555, p. 71, n. 2.

Note return to page 129 5MSS. Reg. 18 D. 3. Another paper in the same volume furnishes a remarkable proof of the inaccuracy of our ancestors in the computation of miles; and which, therefore, may be worth recording, though not connected with the present subject. It contains an account of the posts which, it is said, were laid towards Ireland, “for her majesties speedier and better service, both for the carrying of packets and expedition of messengers,” in 1579, 1580, and 1581. The road through Lichfield to Chester is estimated at one hundred and thirty-three miles; and from Chester through Rhydland and Beaumarris to Holyhead, at fifty-four miles. Total from London to Holyhead, one hundred and eighty-seven miles. The real distance is two hundred and seventy-eight miles. At that time one packet-boat only sailed every week from Holyhead to Dublin.

Note return to page 130 6“The Boke of Husbandry, very profitable and necessarie for all persons.” 8vo. 1534.

Note return to page 131 7The mark of the bailiff is thus pompously introduced: “The sign manuel of George Whateley, high Bailiff.” Among the aldermen, Roger Sadler, Ralph Cawdrey, and Lewis ap Williams, make their marks. Adrian Quiney, Humphrey Plymley, William Smythe, mercer, William Bott, and Richard Hill, sign their names. The mark of John Shakspeare is considerably below his name, in consequence of the town clerk's having written it so close to the name immediately above, that if he had made his mark directly opposite to his name, it would have intrenched on that of the person who preceded him. It was, indeed, his usual custom to set his mark lower than his name. In the latter part of his life he contented himself with making a cross instead of the A, which he had formerly used.

Note return to page 132 8Registr. Burg. Stratford, A.

Note return to page 133 9Hugh Clonne, scholemaister of Stretford, was admitted into the fraternity of the Guild of the Holy Cross in the year 1430; 9 Henry VI. Registr. Gild. fol. xxxviii. b. The grammar school of Stratford, according to Leland (Itin. vol. iv. p. 2, fol. 167, a.), “was founded by one Jolepe, a Master of Arts, born in Stratford, whereabout he had some patrimony, and that he gave to this schoole.” But both he and Dugdale are mistaken in the name of the founder, who was Thomas Jolyffe, as appears by a rent-roll of the lands, &c. of the guild of the Holy Cross, made October 5, 1530 [22 Henry VIII.], and now among the archives of Stratford; the last article of which is— “Redditus terrarum et tenementorum Magistri Thome Jolyffe.” The land which he bequeathed lay in the hamlet of Dodwell. The whole value of a close there, and of his tenements in the old town, and in Rother-street, amounted at that time only to 2l. 17s. 6d. The school seems to have been kept in our author's time in the chapel of the guild; for on the 18th of February, 1594–5, the following order was made by the corporation of Stratford: “At this halle yt ys agreed by the Bayliffe and the greater number of the company nowe present that there shalbe no schole kept in the chapel from this time followinge.”

Note return to page 134 1As it may gratify those persons who are more immediately connected with the town of Stratford, I subjoin as perfect a list as I have been able to form from various loose and unconnected papers, of the successive masters of the free school there, from the latter end of the reign of Henry the Eighth: 1546, William Dalam (not Dalum, as Dugdale has it). 1554, William Smart. 1563, &lblank; Allen. 1565, John Brownsworde. 1568, &lblank; Acton* [Subnote: *Cambridge Coll. Corp. Christi. 1572, Thos Acton, convr. 2dus, matriculated, perhaps the son of Acton, schoolmaster.] . 1570, Walter Roche. 1572, Thomas Hunt. [ob. Ap. 7, 1612.] 1577, (or before), Thomas Jenkins. 1580, John Cotton. 1583, Alexander Aspinall† [Subnote: †Brazen Nose Coll. Alexr Aspinall, Lanc. 20 ann. Oxon. venit 1573. Regm. Matric. So he must have been born in 1553.] . 1624, John Trapp. 1669, John Johnson. 1689, Thomas Willes. 1716, Gabriel Barrodale. 1735, Joseph Greene. 1772, David Davenport. 1774, James Davenport. 1792, John Whitmore. In a paper without date of year, containing a list of contributors of certain sums as “a free and voluntary present to his Majesty, in pursuance to an act of parliament, and a commission thereupon issued, dated the 6th day of August last past;” signed by John Holbech, Rec. I find the name of “Benjamin Beddome Schoole-master;” but I know not to what period he ought to be referred: perhaps to the reign of Edward VI. immediately after William Dalam. During the years 1575, 1576, and part of 1577, in the chamberlain's accounts, from which, during those years, I derive my information, the annual stipend is only stated generally to have been made “to the schoolmaster” without specifying his name; so that it is uncertain whether the office during that period was filled by Mr. Hunt or Mr. Jenkins, though from preceding and subsequent entries, it is certain that it was filled by one or the other of those gentlemen. Mr. Thomas Hunt, who had the honour to be one of our poet's school-masters, was buried at Stratford, April 12, 1612. Mr. Alexander Aspinhall, who was near forty years school-master of Stratford, and was chosen one of the burgesses, married Oct. 28, 1594, Anne, the sister of Julius Shaw, one of the witnesses to Shakspeare's will. William Dalam, the first person in the foregoing list, was one of the five priests of the guild of Stratford, as appears by an ancient deed, executed March 10, 35 Henry VIII. which is preserved among the archives of that corporation. The other four priests at that time were, Roger Egerton, Nicholas Coterel, John Payne, and Thomas Hakyns..

Note return to page 135 2 Dr. Johnson's Life of Sydenham.

Note return to page 136 3See Appendix.

Note return to page 137 4The writing of Latin letters to their fathers, appears to have been a common exercise enjoined to the scholars of Shakspeare's age. Thus in the Mastive, or Young Whelp of the Old Dogge [a collection of epigrams and satires], 4to. 1615, Signat. D. verso: “Who dares say Doltas speaketh barbarisme, “That scholar-like, can make a syllogisme; “Can cap a verse which may deserve commend, “And hath his grammer rules at's finger's ende; “Can write a' pistle to his dad in Latin,” &c.

Note return to page 138 5“Essay on the Learning of Shakspeare, by the Rev. Richard Farmer, B. D.” 8vo. 1767.

Note return to page 139 6See the Dedication prefixed to his Arthur Gorges' Translation of Lucan, by his son Carew Gorges, folio, 1614. “I remember this sentence in my Pueriles, Voluntas ubi desunt vires, est laudanda, &c.” From Peele's historical play of Edward I. 4to. 1593, if he did not intend a blunder, Pueriles and Cato's Moral Distichs should seem to have been the same book, with a double title: “It is an old sayde saying I remember I redde it in Catoes Pueriles, that cantabit vacuus,” &c. But Drayton mentions them as different: “And when that once Pueriles I had read, “And newly had my Cato construed,” &c. Epistle to Henry Reynolds, Esq. Tully's Offices was at that period a common school-book. “Whereunto (says Peacham) I might add Gyges' Ring and his [Tully's] Offices, which booke, let it not seeme contemptible unto you, because it lyeth tossed and torne in every schoole.” Comp. Gent. 4to. 1622, p. 45. Lord Burghley, Peacham tells us, was so fond of Tully's Offices, that he always carried that book in his pocket. Drayton's Epistle, above quoted, furnishes us with the first poetry then put into the hands of learners; Mantuan, and the Eclogues of Virgil. For the method of teaching then adopted by school-masters, see Mount Tabor, or Private Exercises of a Penitent Sinner, 8vo. 1639, p. 10, by R. W. [i. e. R. Wallis,] Esq. The author was, like Shakspeare, born in 1564.

Note return to page 140 7Of this author, then very popular, he has quoted the first line in Love's Labour's Lost.

Note return to page 141 8Having found the will of Mr. Richard Hall in the Prerogative Office (which was made May 16, 1590, and proved Feb. 8, 1593–4, in the beginning of which year he died), I hoped to have been able to ascertain this circumstance; but was disappointed. He bequeaths “to every god child that he then had, 12d.,” but does not mention of any of them specifically by name. On an action on the case being brought in the bailiff's court against our poet's father, by Mr. Nicholas Lane, in Hilary term, 29 Eliz. [1587], Mr. Richard Hill entered into a special bailbond for the appearance of the defendant.

Note return to page 142 1Mr. Henry Rogers was town clerk of Stratford in 1577, and continued to hold that office till Michaelmas, 1586. This officer was called town-clerk at a very early period; Mr. Richard Symons being so described in the account of the proceedings of the leet, October 5, 1554. Afterwards he was called steward, which name he uniformly bore from 1570 to 1610, when Mr. Thomas Greene, a solicitor in chancery, and a relation of our poet, is stated in the chamberlain's account to receive his salary by the name of town-clerk. From that time the two names were indiscriminately used. Sir Hugh Clopton, who filled the office in 1705, signs himself seneschallus. The salary of the office was then 10l. a year. The successive town clerks of Stratford, in our author's time, were Mr. Henry Higford, 1560. Mr. John Jefferies, 1570. Mr. Henry Rogers, 1577. Mr. John Jefferies, jun. 1586. Mr. Thomas Greene, 1603. The principal attorneys of Stratford about the year 1580, were Mr. Henry Rogers above-mentioned, Mr. Thomas Trussel, Mr. William Court, alias Smith, Mr. Richard Spooner, Mr. Edward Davies, Mr. Richard Symmons, and Mr. William Bott.

Note return to page 143 2“&lblank; for what in me was purchas'd, “Falls upon thee in a much fairer sort.” King Henry IV. P. II. Purchase is here used in its strict legal sense, in contradistinction to an acquisition by descent. “Unless the devil have him in fee-simple, with fine and recovery.” Merry Wives of Windsor. “He is 'rested on the case.” Comedy of Errors. “&lblank; with bills on their necks, Be it known unto all men by these presents,” &c. As You Like It. “&lblank; who writes himself armigero, in any bill, warrant, quittance, or obligation.” Merry Wives of Windsor. “Go with me to a notary, seal me there “Your single bond.” Merchant of Venice. “Say, for non-payment that the debt should double.” Venus and Adonis. On a conditional bond's becoming forfeited for non-payment of money borrowed, the whole penalty, which is usually the double of the principal sum lent by the obligee, was formerly recoverable at law. To this our poet here alludes. “But the defendant doth that plea deny; “To 'cide his title, is impanelled “A quest of thoughts.” Sonnet 46. In Much Ado About Nothing, Dogberry charges the watch to keep their fellows' counsel and their own. This Shakspeare transferred from the oath of a jury-man. “And let my officers of such a nature “Make an extent upon his house and lands.” As You Like It. “He was taken with the manner.” Love's Labour's Lost. “Enfeof'd himself to popularity.” King Henry IV. P. I. “He will seal the fee-simple of his salvation, and cut the entail from all remainders, and a perpetual succession for it perpetually.” All's Well that Ends Well. “Why, let her except before excepted.” Twelfth Night. “&lblank; which is four terms, or two actions;—and he shall laugh without intervallums.” King Henry IV. P. II. “&lblank; keeps leets and law-days.” King Richard II. “Pray in aid for kindness.” Antony and Cleopatra. No writer but one who had been conversant with the technical language of leases and other conveyances, would have used determination as synonymous to end. Shakspeare frequently uses the word in that sense. See vol. xvii. p. 183, n. 3; and vol. xx. p. 235, n. 8. “From and after the determination of such term,” is the regular language of conveyancers. “Humbly complaining to your highness.” King Richard III. “Humbly complaining to your lordship, your orator,” &c. are the first words of every bill in chancery. “A kiss in fee-farm! In witness whereof these parties interchangeably have set their hands and seals.” Troilus and Cressida. “Art thou a feodary for this act?” Cymbeline. See the note on that passage, vol. xiii. p. 100, n. 6. “Are those precepts served?” says Shallow to Davy in King Henry IV. Precepts in this sense is a word only known in the office of a justice of peace. “Tell me, what state, what dignity, what honour, “Can'st thou demise to any child of mine?” K. Richard III. “&lblank; hath demised, granted, and to farm let,” is the constant language of leases. What poet but Shakspeare has used the word demised in this sense? “This fellow might be in his time a great buyer of land, with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers, his recoveries.” Hamlet. Perhaps it may be said, that our author in the same manner may be proved to have been equally conversant with the terms of divinity or physick. Whenever as large a number of instances of his ecclesiastical or medicinal knowledge shall be produced, what has now been stated will certainly not be entitled to any weight. Malone. A large addition might be made to this list of the instances in which legal language has been used in Shakspeare. But as this notion, after it had been suggested by Mr. Malone, originally in a note appended to his Essay on the Chronological Order of Shakspeare's Plays, Art. Hamlet, was adopted both by Mr. Steevens and Mr. Ritson, these gentlemen have called the attention of the reader to many passages of this description in the course of their comments. Boswell.

Note return to page 144 3Gentle was used by Spenser and his contemporaries with the sense of generosus, bene moratus.

Note return to page 145 4To the truth of this sentiment our author himself bears testimony in his Two Gentlemen of Verona: “&lblank; as in the sweetest buds “The eating canker dwells, so eating love “Inhabits in the finest wits of all.”

Note return to page 146 5A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act I. Sc. I.

Note return to page 147 6Twelfth Night, Act II. Sc. IV. vol. xi. p. 403.

Note return to page 148 7This notion was first suggested to me by finding that Mr. William Wilson was married to Anne Hathaway, of Shottery, January 17, 1579–80; and I suspected that he died between that time and 1582. But, on a further examination, I found that Mr. William Wilson, who was an alderman of Stratford, lived to the year 1605. She could not, therefore, have married Shakspeare. Besides, as I have observed above, it is much more probable that our poet's wife was of Luddington. The late Mr. Joseph Greene, vicar of Welford, near Stratford, imagined that our poet's wife was of Shottery; induced, probably, by finding, in the Stratford register, the names of Richard Hathaway, otherwise Gardiner, of Shottery, and his descendants, frequently occur; and he supposed that a remarkable house in Shottery, which in his time was the property of two ladies of the name of Tyler, and had formerly belonged to an old Mr. Quiney, might have descended from Thomas Quiney, on whose marriage, with the poet's second daughter, he might have settled this house, which, it was suggested, he might have acquired as a part of his wife's portion. But it is clear, from Shakspeare's will, that he had not paid his second daughter's portion, at the time of his death, though he had covenanted to give her 100l. which, accordingly, he does, in his will; and he makes no mention of a house in Shottery. Mr. Bartholomew Hathaway, a substantial yeoman, who was the possessor of the Shottery estate, and who, I believe, was the son of Mr. Richard Hathaway, born before the commencement of the register, died at a good old age, in 1624. From his will, which was made December 16, 1621, and proved at Stratford, December 6, 1624, I find that he had three sons; John, Richard, and Edmond. To Richard he bequeaths twenty shillings; to Edmond, his third son, 120l. to be paid in seven years after his decease; and to his eldest son, John, his messuage, in Shottery, with the appurtenances, and two yard lands and a half [about seventy-five acres], lying in the fields of Shottery and Old Stratford; limiting the said lands to him and the heirs of his body, remainder to his son Edmond, remainder to Richard. To each of the children of his son John, viz. Alice, Richard, Anne, and Ursula, one of his best ewes. To his own daughter, Anne, the now wife of Richard Edwards, the sum of thirty shillings; and to each of her seven [q. six] children, Avery, Bartholomew, Alice, Thomas, Richard, and Ursula, 6s. viiid. His executor is his son John; and Mr. John Hall, of Stratford, and Stephen Burman, of Shottery, his overseers; to each of whom he leaves 2s. vid. Avery Edwards, the person above-mentioned, lived, in the year 1622, at Luddington, as appears from the collector's subsidy book, 19 Jac. in the chamber of Stratford. Richard Hathaway, a baker, who was elected an alderman of Stratford, April 18, 1623, and died there in October, 1636, was probably the second son of the above-named Bartholomew. I do not believe that there was any other person of the name of Hathaway, who had an estate at Shottery; and Bartholomew's daughter, Anne, we see, was married to Richard Edwards. The wife of our poet might, indeed, have been Bartholomew Hathaway's sister; but, as she was yet living when his will was made, and no mention is made of her in it, nor any memorial given to her, I think it improbable that she should have been his sister. I may add, in confirmation of what I have suggested (that our poet's wife was not of Shottery), that Susanna, the daughter of Thomas Hathaway (Shakspeare's great nephew, as I believe), who was baptized at Stratford, June 11, 1648, and to whom, without doubt, Mrs. Susanna Hall was godmother, is described, in the parish register, as the daughter of Thomas Hathaway, without any addition; as are William, son to the same Thomas Hathaway, baptized April 19, 1610; Rose, his daughter, baptized November 6, 1642; and Elizabeth, another daughter, baptized January 10, 1646–7. Whereas, we find that Edmond, “son to John Hathaway, of Shottery,” baptized November 23, 1628, and Elizabeth, daughter of the same John Hathaway, of Shottery, baptized January 22, 1625–6. This distinction is constantly preserved in the register. I mention these circumstances, as they show that the Hathaways, who were related to our poet's daughters, were not of Shottery. Mrs. Judith Quiney was, without doubt, sponsor for Judith, another daughter of the same Thomas Hathaway; and our poet's grand-daughter, Lady Barnard, bequeaths legacies to his several children above-named; Susanna, Judith, Rose, and Elizabeth; which last was certainly her own godchild. She calls him “her kinsman Thomas Hathaway, late of Stratford upon Avon.”

Note return to page 149 8Penes Charles Boothby Schrymshire Clopton, Esquire.

Note return to page 150 9Registr. Burg. Stratford, B. The ordinary sum paid by a native was but 3s. 4d. Mr. Thomas Hathaway died at Stratford, where he was buried, January 15, 1654–5.

Note return to page 151 1Cod. MS. in Officio Arm.

Note return to page 152 2I have since learned that Mr. John Hathaway farmed part of this estate, till the year 1775, when he died.

Note return to page 153 3The earliest register of the parish of Weston now extant, begins in 1680. Weston being in the diocese of Gloucester, I hoped to have found, in the proper office there, a duplicate of the several entries contained in the more ancient register, which has been lost; but, after taking a journey to Gloucester expressly for the purpose, I was disappointed; no transcript of the names of any persons married in the year 1582, being there extant. These very useful transmisses were, indeed, first enjoined to be sent from the various parishes, in each diocese, by the canons made in 1601; but, I apprehend, the practice, in some places, prevailed before. Though Cromwell's injunctions for the orderly registering of all marriages, baptisms, and burials, were not issued till 1538, I have seen some registers of an earlier date. The ancient register of Billesley is also lost. It is observable, that our poet's grand-daughter was married to her second husband in the church of Billesley (which is but three miles from Stratford); perhaps, in consequence of her grandfather's having been married there.

Note return to page 154 4In consequence of a mistake committed by the late Rev. Joseph Green, in making an extract from the register of the parish of Stratford, which he gave to the late Mr. James West, in 1770, our poet's only son was, for a long time, erroneously supposed to have been baptized by the name of Samuel. His true name I recovered from the register.

Note return to page 155 5Probably by Mr. Betterton, who made a journey to Stratford, to collect information respecting our poet. In the manuscript papers of the late Mr. Oldys, as Mr. Steevens relates, “it is said that one Boman (‘according to Chetwood, p. 143, an actor more than half an age on the London theatres’), was unwilling to allow that his associate and contemporary, Betterton, had ever undertaken this journey.” This assertion of Mr. Oldys appears to me altogether unworthy of credit, not that I believe he meant to deceive, but he certainly must have misapprehended Mr. Boman. Why any doubt should be insinuated, or entertained, concerning Mr. Betterton's having visited Stratford, after Rowe's positive assertion that he did so, it is not easy to conceive. Mr. Rowe did not go there himself; and how could he have collected the few circumstances relative to Shakspeare and his family, which he has told, if he had not obtained information from some friend, who examined the register of the parish of Stratford, and made personal inquiries on the subject? “Boman,” we are told, “was unwilling to believe,” &c. But the fact disputed did not require any exercise of his belief. Mr. Boman, who died in 1739, near eighty years old, was married to the daughter of Sir Francis Watson, Bart. the gentleman with whom Betterton joined in an adventure to the East Indies, whose name the writer of Betterton's Life, in the Biographia Britannica, has so studiously concealed. By that unfortunate scheme, Betterton lost above 2000l.; Dr. Ratcliffe, 6000l.; and Sir Francis Watson, his whole fortune. On his death, soon after the year 1692, Mr. Betterton generously took his daughter under his protection, and educated her in his house. Here Boman married her; from which period he continued to live in the most friendly correspondence with Mr. Betterton, and must have known whether he went to Stratford or not.

Note return to page 156 6See an account of him in Wood's Ath. Oxon. ii. 823, edit. 1721. He was born at Penshurst, in Kent, in 1632, and elected a scholar of Corpus Christi College in 1647. Being afterwards ejected by the parliamentarian visitors, he became tutor to the children of Mr. Peto, of Chesterton, in Warwickshire, where, for seven years, he found a comfortable retreat during the Usurpation. After the Restoration, he was elected a fellow of Corpus Christi College, and was presented by the president and fellows of his house to the rectory of Moysey Hampton, near Fairford, in Gloucestershire, where he died (“to the reluctancy,” says Wood, “of many learned men”) June 28, 1688. The Life of Charles the First, which goes under the name of Dr. Richard Perenchief, was compiled from the papers of this learned man. Having, in his youth, been amanuensis to Dr. Hammond, The Whole Duty of Man has been, without sufficient foundation, ascribed to him, among many others. Anthony Wood derived much information from him, as appears by several of his letters to Mr. Fulman; whose biographical collections he much laments that he was not permitted to peruse.

Note return to page 157 7This place has been celebrated by Pope: “From Cotswold hills to Saperton's fair dale.” Hor. Imit. b. ii. ep. ii.

Note return to page 158 8This omission of the personal pronoun was not uncommon in the last age. See the Essay on the Metre and Phraseology of Shakspeare and his Contemporaries.

Note return to page 159 9Fulman's MSS. vol. xv. article, Shakspeare.

Note return to page 160 1The register of Charlecote, not commencing till after the birth of Sir Thomas Lucy, gives no information on this subject; and his tomb is equally silent; but it appears, from an inquisition taken at Warwick, September 23, 1551, on the death of his father, William Lucy, that he was of the age of nineteen years, two months, and upwards, at the time of his father's death, which happened June 24, 1551. He was, therefore, born in or before April, 1532. Esc. 5 Ed. VI. p. 2, n. 89.

Note return to page 161 2They are all enumerated in the will of his father, William Lucy; which was made June 23, 1551, the day before his death.

Note return to page 162 3Et predict. Willus Lucye sic de et in predictis maneriis, advocaconibus, messuagiis terris, tenementis et cæteris premissis cum suis pertinent. seisitus existens, in considerac&obar;ne cujusdam maritagii inter Thomam Lucye, armigerum, tunc filium et heredem apparentem dicti Willielmi Lucye et Jocosam adhunc et modo uxorem ejusdem Thomæ, filiam et hæredem Thome Acton nuper de Sutton in com. Wigorn. armigeri defuncti, tunc habit. et solemnizat. (quæ quidem Jocosa in plena vita et ætatis sexdecem annorum et amplius modo existit apud Charlecotte predict.) Ac etiam pro diversis promissis et agreament. ex parte dicti Thome Acton cum prefato Willo Lucye fact. tunc vere observat.; Necnon in considerac&obar;ne et per implement. quorundam agreament. et C&wblank;&wblank;&wblank;&wblank;&wblank;&wblank;&wblank; prefat. Willm. Lucye cum prefat. Thome Acton perantea fact. et habit. idem Willus Lucye per cartam suam indentat. juratoribus predictis super capc&obar;nem hujus Jnquisitionis in evidens. ostentatam cujus dat. primo die mensis Augusti anno regni nuper regis Angliæ Henrici Octavi tricesimo octavo [1546] dedit, concessit, &c. Esc. 5 Ed. VI. p. 2. n. 89. It is remarkable that Sir Thomas Lucy, in an elaborate epitaph, which he wrote for his wife, and which I shall hereafter have occasion to quote, says that she was sixty-three when she died, Feb. 10, 1595–6. If the words relative to her in this inquisition are cited from the deed of 1546, then she must have been born in the year 1530, and consequently must have been sixty-six when she died: if they relate to the time of taking the inquisition (Sept. 23, 1551), she must have been born some time in the year 1535, and could not have been more than sixty-one when she died. This is not the only instance in which I have found tombstones inaccurate.

Note return to page 163 4Mr. Devereux having died soon after his election, Sir John Hubaud was elected in his room.

Note return to page 164 5Mr. Strickland, a zealous puritan, or, in the words of my author, “a grave and ancient man of great zeal,” April 6, 1571, made a long discourse to induce the house to order the preachers of the gospel to publish a confession of faith, as had been done at Strasburgh, Frankfort, &c. and to take order to purge the common prayer-book, and free it from certain superstitious ceremonies, as using the sign of the cross in baptism, &c. He said Mr. Norton, a member of that house, had a book composed for the purpose of effecting this kind of reformation, a reformation which he contended was “not contrariant, but directly pursuant to our profession, that is, to have all things brought to the purity of the primitive church and institution of Christ.” Mr. Norton said, that he had such a book, but that it was not composed by him, but by virtue of an act of parliament, passed in 1532, by which eight bishops, eight divines, eight civilians, and eight temporal lawyers, were appointed to make ecclesiastical constitutions: in consequence of which the work was undertaken by Dr. Haddon, who composed the scheme or plan of the book, which was penned by Mr. Cheeke. This book, which was printed, was tendered to the house. Whereupon the following persons were appointed for the redress of sundry defections in those matters; viz. all the Privy Council being members of the house, Sir Henry Neville, Sir Thomas Thynne, Sir Thomas Lucy, Mr. Norton, Mr. Strickland, and ten others.” Parl. Hist. iv. 105. D'Ewe's Journ. 156. In the Journals of the House of Commons this matter is thus stated: “Veneris, 6 Apr. 1571. “Upon a motion for uniformity of religion, and the mention of certain bills drawn for that purpose the last parliament, and for redress of sundry defections in those matters, a Committee is by the House appointed of these following; viz. all the Privy Council that are of this house, Sir Henry Neville, Sir John Thynne, Sir Thomas Lucy, Mr. Strickland,” &c. We again find Sir Thomas Lucy united with Mr. Strickland and Mr. Norton on a subsequent occasion: “Martis, prima die Maii, 1571. “Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Doctor Huyoke do desire, from the Lords, that some of this house may attend upon six of the Lords to-morrow morning at eight of the clock, for conference touching the bill against priests disguising themselves in serving-men's apparel; which is granted; and thereupon Mr. Treasurer, Sir Thomas Scotte, Sir Owen Hopton, Sir Thomas Lucye, Sir Henry Jones, Mr. Servient Manwood, Mr. Clare, Mr. Thomas Browne, Mr. Norton, Mr. Yelverton, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Mounson, and Mr. Thomas Hussey, are appointed for that purpose.” Com. Journ. l. 87. “The bill for respite of homage, with the bill for coming to church, and receiving the communion, was sent to the Lords by Mr. Treasurer, Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Chanr. of the Dutchy, Mr. Chanr. of the Excheqr. Sr. Thomas Smith, Sr. Thomas Scotte, Sr. Thomas Lucy, Mr. Norton, Mr. Yelverton, Mr. Strickland, &c. 6 May. 1571.” Com. Journ. l. 88. Towards the close of this session, I find Sir Thomas Lucy joined with many other respectable members, in vindicating the honour of the House against a charge of corruption. “Lunæ, vicesimo octavo Maii, 1571. “All the privy council being of this house, Sr. Nics. Arnolde, Sr. Ths. Scott, Sr. Thomas Lucy, Sir Humphry Gilbert, Mr. Recorder of London, Mr. Mounson, Mr. Yelverton, and Mr. Wrothe, are upon some speeches uttered to this house, that some of the members of this house shd take money for their voices, appointed to meet this afternoon in the Starchamber; and to examine what persons being members of this house, have taken any fees or rewards for their voices, in the furtherance or hindrance of any bills offered into this house; and then afterwards to make report of the particularities thereof unto this house accordingly.” “Martis, vicesimo nono Maii, 1571. “The Committees for examination of fees or rewards, taken for voices in the house, do make report, That they cannot learn of any that hath sold his voice in this house, or any way dealt unlawfully, or indirectly, in that behalf; and thereupon Mr. Norton, declaring that he heard that some had him in suspicion that way, justifieth himself, and is, upon the question, purged by the voice of the whole house: and their good opinion of him and of his honest and dutiful dealing and great pains-taking in the service of this house, are in very good and acceptable part declared and affirmed by the like voice of the whole house.” Com. Journ. l. 93. In the next parliament in which Sir Thomas Lucy sat, on Monday, the 14th of Dec. [1584] three petitions touching the liberty of godly preachers, and to exercise and continue their ministeries, and also for the speedy supply of able and sufficient men into divers places now destitute, and void of the ordinary means of salvation, were offered unto the house; the first by Sir Thomas Lucy, the second by Sir Edward Dymock, and the third by Mr. Gates, which were all thereupon read, and further proceedings therein deferred until a more convenient time. D'Ewe's Journ. p. 399. These petitions, it should be observed, were drawn up in the name of the Commons, to be presented to the House of Lords. What was meant by the liberty of godly preachers, &c. may be collected from the fourth, sixth, and eighth articles of these petitions: “4. Further, that forasmuch as it is prescribed in the form of ordering ministers, that the bishops with the priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the heads of every one that receiveth order, without any mention of any certain number of priests that shall be present; and that in a statute made 21 of King H. the eighth, is affirmed that a bishop must occupy six chaplains at giving of orders; it may be considered whether it may be meet to provide that no bishop shall ordain any minister of the word and sacraments but with the assistance of six other ministers at the least, and thereto such only be chosen as be of good report for their life, learned, continually resiant upon their benefices with cure, and which do give testimony of their cure for the church of God, by their diligence in teaching and preaching in their charge: and that the said ministers do testify their presence at the admission of such ministers by subscription of their hands to some act, importing the same: and further that this admission be had and done publickly, and not in any private house or chapel. “6. That it be likewise considered whether for the better assurance that none creep into the charge and cures, being men of corrupt life, or not known diligent, it might be provided that none be instituted or by collation preferred to any benefice with cure of souls, or received to be curate in any charge, without some competent notice before given to the parishes where they take charge, and some reasonable time allowed, wherein it may be lawful to such as can discover any defect in conversation of life in the person who is to be so placed as is aforesaid, to come and object the same. “8. Whereas sundry ministers of this realm diligent in their calling, and of godly conversation and life, have of late years been grieved with indictments in temporal courts, and molested by some exercising ecclesiastical jurisdictions, for omitting small portions or some ceremony prescribed in the book of Common Prayer, to the great disgrace of their ministry, and imboldening of men either hardly affected in religion, or void of all zeal to the same, which also hath ministered no small occasion of discouragement to the forwardness of such as would otherwise enter into the ministry; some good and charitable means may be by their honourable discretions devised, that such ministers as in the publick service of the church, and in the administration of the sacraments, do use the book of common prayer allowed by the statutes of this realm and none other, be not from henceforth called to question for omission or change of some portion or rite as is aforesaid, so their doings therein be void of contempt.”

Note return to page 165 6On Tuesday, Feb. 23, 1584–5, “upon a motion began by Sir Thomas Lucy, and continued [i. e. seconded] by Sir Thomas Moore, that those of this house which are of her Majesties Privy Council, may in the name of this whole house be humble suitors unto her Majesty, that, forasmuch as that villainous traitor, Parry, was a member of this house in the time of some of his most horrible and traiterous conspiracies and attempts against her Majesties most royal person (whom Almighty God long preserve) her Majesty would vouchsafe to give licence to this house, for that many are of the fellowship of the Association, to proceed to the devising and making of some law for his execution after his conviction, as may be thought fittest for his so extraordinary and horrible treason: It was resolved that those of this house being of her Majesties most honourable Privy Council, and now present at this motion, to wit, Mr. Treasurer and Mr. Vice Chamberlain, shall exhibit the same humble suit of the House unto her Majesty accordingly at their convenient opportunity.” D'Ewes's Journ. 355. Sir Thomas Lucy was, without doubt, one of the Associators above-mentioned. Of the origin of this association, which in our own time was so happily imitated at a moment when the whole nation was almost benumbed with the well-founded apprehension of the horrors of French anarchy, bloodshed, and impiety, being introduced into this country by domestick traitors acting in concert with the vilest of the human race in France, Camden gives us the following account: “Hinc et ingruentibus undique periculorum rumoribus, ut pravis seditiorum consiliis insidiisque occurreretur, et reginæ saluti, a quo et regnum et religio dependit, consuleretur; plurimi, Leicestrio auctore, ex omni hominum ordine per Angliam ex communi charitate, dum non illam sed de illa timuerunt, se associatione quadam mutuis votis, subscriptionibus, et sigillis obstrinxerunt, ad eos omnibus viribus ad mortem usque persequendos qui in reginam aliquid attentaverint.” Annal. ii. 418. On the next day (February 24, 1584–5), I find Sir Thomas Lucy, Sir Philip Sydney, the Lord Russel, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Thomas Cecil, &c. composing a committee to consider “in what measure and manner they should supply her majesty by subsidy.”

Note return to page 166 7“The bill for the preservation of grain and game, was, upon the second reading, committed to Sir Edward Hobby, Sir John Tracy, Mr. Lieutenant of the Tower, Sir Henry Nevill, Sir Thomas Lucy, and others; and the bill was delivered to the said Sir Thomas Lucy, who, with the rest, was appointed to meet this afternoon [March 4, 1584–5], in the parliament house or parlour of the Middle Temple.” D'Ewes's Journ. 363. No act, on this subject, being found among the statutes enacted this year, it appears that this bill, in some subsequent stage, was rejected. The purport of it was probably the same as that of an act passed in the seventh year of King James, c. 11, entitled “An Act to prevent the Spoil of Corn and Grain, by untimely Hawking, and for the better Preservation of Pheasants and Partridges.”

Note return to page 167 8The Overthrow of Stage Plaies, 4to. 1599, p. 23.

Note return to page 168 9 Afterwards the celebrated astrologer, who died in 1613. Probably, the passage quoted by Wood is found in one of Forman's MSS. in the Ashmole Museum, in Oxford.

Note return to page 169 1 Athen. Oxon. i. 371.

Note return to page 170 2Wit's Bedlam, Ep. 93, 8vo. 1617. Written by John Davies, of Hereford, as appears from a passage in which the author says he was a native of that town, and a writing-master. That this kind of juvenile frolick was generally unconnected with any lucrative motive, may also be inferred from the following verses, by the same author, in his Scourge of Folly, without date, but published about the year 1611: “Of Drusus his deere-hunting. “Drusus in stealing of a deere was kill'd, “So dyed, ere he had his belly fill'd; “Thus, like a flea, in seeking but for food, “Ere he was full, he lost his life and blood.” How very common the practice of stealing deer formerly was, may further appear from the following verses of Bishop Corbet, in his Iter Boreale, which was written at some time between 1614 and 1620. He is describing his fare at an inn, at Flower, in Northamptonshire, about three miles from Daventry: “Now whether it were providence or luck, “Whether the keeper's, or the stealer's buck, “There we had venison.” Poems, p. 2, edit. 1672. To the same purpose may be cited the following passage in Fuller's Worthies (Lincolnshire, 102), which shows manifestly how common deer-stealing continued to be, even to his time [1658]: “I will insert [says he], a letter of Lady Elizabeth, written to him [Peregrine Bertie] with her own hand; and, Reader, deale in matters of this nature, as when venison is set before thee, eat the one, and read the other, never asking whence either came.”

Note return to page 171 3This act was certainly considered an important one, for I find the bill on which it was founded was either brought in by Mr. Comptroller of her Majesty's household [Sir Edward Rogers], or committed to him and others; and when it passed the Commons, it was carried up to the Lords, by Mr. Secretary Cecil, afterwards Lord Burghley. Com. Journ. i. 64–68, compared with D'Ewes, 83. It appears to have been much contested in its progress; and in the different stages of the bill to have assumed different shapes and titles: “Jovis. Jan. 24, 1562–3. “The bill [for breaking of ponds, and stealing fish and coneys].” Com. Journ. l. 63. “Merc. 3. Feb. “The bill for robbing of ponds, and stealing of coneys, to be felony. Mr. Comptroller.” Com. Journ. l. 64. It is afterwards called “The bill for punishment of unlawful taking of fish, conies, or deer, out of parks and enclosed grounds.” It was engrossed on the 25th of February. The House divided on it, on the 8th of March, and it was carried to the Lords on the 11th, under the title of “A Bill to prevent the stealing of fish, deer, or hawks;” the article of conies having, in the progress of the bill, been omitted, and the punishment of felony, which was originally proposed, changed to that mentioned in the text. On the 29th of March, an additional clause or proviso to this bill was brought from the Lords, and there was a division on that proviso, on the 31st of the same month. Com. Journ. i. 71. This proviso was, without doubt, the second in the Act, which enables the party aggrieved, on certain conditions, to release the offender from his recognizance for his good behaviour. Thus, we find, this bill was above two months in its progress to a law, and the session lasted but three; from the 12th of January to the 10th of the following April. By a former statute, made about twenty years before, 32 Hen. VIII. ch. 2. (to which this reasonable preamble is prefixed, “Forasmuch as justice and equity requireth that every inheritor and possessor of manors, lands, or tenements, within the realme of England should, according to their estates or possessions, peaceably and quietly have, take, and enjoy the profits, revenues and commodities of the same, as well in things of pleasure, as in things commonly valuable, without injury, rapine, or other extort wrong to be committed or done to any of them within or upon the same—”), it was enacted, that if any person, with his face hid with hood or visor, or with painted face, or otherwise disguised, to the intent he should not be known, should steal deer or conies, in the day-time, in a lawful park or warren; or if any person should steal deer or conies, in a lawful park or warren, in the night-time, he should be adjudged guilty of felony of death. But this severe act subsisted but seven years, being repealed by 1 Edward VI. c. 12. Afterwards, it was revived for three years, by 3 & 4 Edward VI. c. 17; again, by the 7th of the same King, c. 11; and once more finally repealed by 1 Mar. sess. 1. c. i. Hence, however, it was, that when the bill was brought in first, in 1562–3, it was proposed to make the offence felony, and the stealing of conies as criminal as the stealing of deer. In the parliament which met in the 14th year of Elizabeth, in which Sir Thomas Lucy was not a member, another ineffectual attempt was made to punish the destroyers of rabbits: “May 20, 1572. The Bill against hunting, and killing of conies, the first reading, and rejected.” Com. Journ. l. 96.

Note return to page 172 4Rowe's Life of Shakspeare.

Note return to page 173 5It was not known that there were not less than five or six attorneys at Stratford, at this time. Hence it is that a Warwick lawyer was introduced on this occasion. According to this improbable account, our author commits an offence against a gentleman, who takes no notice of him; and then he writes a lampoon on the person whom he has injured, who becomes so exasperated that he determines to prosecute the offender. These relaters seem to suppose that our poet acted on the principle of his own Richard: “I do the wrong, and first begin to brawl.”

Note return to page 174 6I have endeavoured to exhibit what Mr. Capel has left on this subject, in intelligible language; but am not sure that I understand him rightly. As a specimen of his style, I will add his own words, which the reader will interpret as he can: “The writer of his ‘Life,’ (the first modern) speaks of a ‘lost ballad,’ which added fuel, he says, to ‘the knight's before conceived anger,’ and ‘redoubled the prosecution,’ and calls the ballad ‘the first essay of Shakspeare's poetry:’ one stanza of it which has the appearance of genuine was put into the editor's hands many years ago by an ingenious gentleman (grandson of its preserver) with this account of the way in which it descended to him. Mr. Thomas Jones who dwelt at Turbich a village in Worcestershire a few miles from Stratford upon Avon, and died in the year 1703, aged upwards of ninety, remembered to have heard from several old people at Stratford the story of Shakspeare's robbing Sir Thomas Lucy's park, and their account of it agreed with Mr. Rowe's, with this addition,—that the ballad written against Sir Thomas by Shakspeare was stuck upon his park-gate, which exasperated the knight to apply to a lawyer at Warwick to proceed against him. Mr. Jones had put down in writing the first stanza of this ballad, which was all he remembered of it, and Mr. Thomas Wilkes (my grandfather) transmitted it to my father by memory, who also took it down in writing, and his copy is this [Mr. Capel then gives the first stanza]. An exact transcript, bating the O [Sing o lowsie Lucy]:” to which is added a note, telling us that “the people of those parts pronounce Lowsie like Lucy.” “Mr. Jones of whom we had it [this stanza] originally was also the hander-down of that anecdote which has been given you in a note upon As You Like It [in Mr. Capel's commentaries on Shakspeare, in quarto], and of this anecdote Mr. Wilkes quotes another confirmation in the person of Mr. Oldys, a late stage antiquarian.” [Query. Of which of these anecdotes does this writer mean to name Mr. Oldys as the voucher? I suppose of that in As You Like It; though the word this, which he has used, should seem to relate to that which we are now considering.] As I have not the smallest doubt that the whole of this ballad is a modern invention, it is hardly worth while to examine the evidence concerning this first stanza: nor, indeed, is it very easy to comprehend Mr. Capel's account. He first tells us, that this stanza was put into his hands, many years ago, by an ingenious gentleman, grandson of its preserver. I suppose, “by the ingenious gentleman,” he means Mr. Thomas Wilkes, whom he afterwards calls his grandfather. He then tells us, that though Mr. Jones had put it down in writing, and, we are to presume, gave it in writing to Mr. Wilkes, that gentleman transmitted it to his [Mr. Capel's] father by memory; and from his father's written copy, thus founded on a memorial copy, he gives it to his readers, though he has previously told them that, many years ago, a written copy was put into his hands by the grandson of the preserver of this rarity, which, being one step nearer the original, should seem to carry with it more authority. I may add, that the other anecdote, which is said to be also derived from Mr. Jones [that one of Shakspeare's brothers lived till after the Restoration, and recollected having seen our poet play the part of Adam, in As You Like It], is utterly impossible to be true, as I shall show in its proper place. So much for Mr. Capel's account of these verses. Mr. Oldys thus introduces the stanza of this ballad preserved by him, which corresponds exactly with Mr. Capel's copy: “There was a very aged gentleman living in the neighbourhood of Stratford (where he died fifty years since), who had not only heard from several old people in that town of Shakspeare's transgression, but could remember the first stanza of that bitter ballad, which, repeating to one of his acquaintance, he preserved it in writing, and here it is, neither better nor worse, but faithfully transcribed from the copy, which his relation very courteously communicated to me: “A parliemente member, a justice of peace, “At home a poor scare-crowe, at London an asse, “If lowsie is Lucy, as some volke miscalle it, “Then Lucy is lowsie whatever befall it:   “He thinks himself greate,   “Yet an asse in his state “We allowe by his ears but with asses to mate. “If Lucy is lowsie, as some volke miscalle it, “Sing lowsie Lucy, whatever befall it.”

Note return to page 175 7She was sister to Samuel Tyler, Esquire, who purchased an estate, at Shottery, from the heir of Mr. Richard Quiney of London, and died at Shottery, in June, 1763, aged seventy.

Note return to page 176 8It is remarkable, that the seal used by Sir Thomas Lucy, was not that which is placed over his tomb, and which all the heralds have ascribed to his family, “gules, three Lucies hariant argent,” but three of the same little fishes braced or entwined; similar, in this respect, to a coat assigned to another ancient family. See Ferne's Blazon of Gentrie, 4to. 1584, p. 232. “This [the shield in the margin] you will confess to agree with the name; and yet it is honourable as may be. It is the coat of Geffrey Lord Lucy. He did bear gules, three lucies hariant, argent.” In a subsequent page, the same author adds, “In like manner, Troutbeck hath taken up three trouts, whose coat, for the order of bearing the charge, I will set before your face, in this scutcheon. This shield is azure, three trouts braced in triangles argent, borne by the name of Troutbeck.” A similar conceit may be observed in the arms of the Arundel family, which are sable, six swallows argent. In like manner, the family of Roche, who were Viscounts Fermoy, in Ireland, bore three roches in their arms. The quibble in the first scene of The Merry Wives of Windsor, without question, was intended to allude to the arms of Sir Thomas Lucy, and the pronunciation of the time aided the allusion. Lowsy, I have no doubt, was pronounced, as it is yet in Scotland, Loozy; and the name of Lucy, as pronounced in Warwickshire [Loosy], had a very similar sound. In allusion to this coat of arms, and to his surname, Dr. William Lucy (grandson to Shakspeare's Sir Thomas Lucy), who finally became Bishop of St. David's, published in 1657, “Observations, &c. on Hobbes's Leviathan,” under the disguised name of Christopher Pike; on which Waller very gravely observes, that “no Englishman, who had not dabbled into Latin, would have changed so good a name as Lucy into that of a fish.” But we see, the Bishop did not need to have recourse to the Latin, lucius; the language of heraldry, at least, furnished him the same word anglicised.

Note return to page 177 9Sir Thomas Lucy, the elder, the supposed prosecutor of Shakspeare, died at Charlecote, in the year 1600, as appears from the following entry in the register of that parish: “Sir Thomas Lucy, Knight, departed this life the 6th day of July, 1600, and was buried the 16th of the same month.” He was, therefore, at his death, in the sixty-ninth year of his age [see the note quoted in p. 123]. In the inquisition taken upon his death, at Warwick, September 26, 43 Eliz. 1601, he is said to have died on the 7th of July; and so says his funeral certificate, authenticated by his son. The same inquisition states that his son, Sir Thomas, was, at the time of taking it, forty-three years old, and upwards. Esc. 43 Eliz. p. 6. n. 7.

Note return to page 178 1William Chetwood, formerly prompter of Drury Lane theatre, the unblushing fabricator of numerous unseen and non-existing editions of Shakspeare's plays, of which he published a fictitious catalogue, in 1751, while he was in the Marshalsea of Dublin, was, I suspect, the author of this Manuscript History of the Stage, which, from some circumstances mentioned in it, appears to have been written some time between April, 1727, and October, 1730. The passage alluded to is as follows: “Here we shall observe, that the learned Mr. Joshua Barnes, late Greek Professor of the University of Cambridge, baiting about forty years ago at an inn in Stratford, and hearing an old woman singing part of the above-said song, such was his respect for Mr. Shakspeare's genius, that he gave her a new gown for the two following stanzas in it; and, could she have said it all, he would (as he often said in company, when any discourse has casually arose about him) have given her ten guineas: “Sir Thomas was too covetous,   “To covet so much deer, “When horns enough upon his head   “Most plainly did appear. “Had not his worship one deer left?   “What then? He had a wife “Took pains enough to find him horns   “Should last him during life.”

Note return to page 179 2In the church of Charlecote is the following inscription, in honour of this lady: “Here entombed lyeth the Lady Joyce Lucy, wife of Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote in the county of Warwick, Knight, daughter and heir of Thomas Acton of Sutton in the county of Worcester, who departed out of this wretched world to her heavenly kingdome, the 10th day of Feby. in the year of our Lord God 1595 [1595–6], and of her age Ix and three: All the time of her life a true and faithful servant of her good God; never detected of any crime or vice; in religion—most sound, in love to her husband most faithful and true; in friendship most constant; to what in trust was committed to her, most secret: in wisdom excelling; in governing her house and bringing up of youth in the fear of God, that did converse with her, most rare, and singular. A great maintainer of hospitality; greatly esteemed of her betters; misliked of none unless of the envious. When all is spoken that can be said, a woman so furnished and garnished with virtue, as not to be bettered, and hardly to be equalled of any. As she lived most virtuously, so she dyed most godly. “Set down by him that best did know what hath been written to be true, Thomas Lucy.”

Note return to page 180 3“A park is an enclosed chace, extending only over a man's own grounds. The word park, indeed, properly signifies an enclosure: but yet it is not every field or common, which a gentleman chuses to surround with a wall or paling, and to stock with a herd of deer, that is thereby constituted a legal park; for the king's grant, or, at least, immemorial prescription, is necessary to make it so.” Blackstone,ii. 38.

Note return to page 181 4See p. 135.

Note return to page 182 5In the chamberlain's account for 1569, I find the following articles: “Item, payd to the Quenes pleyers, ixs. “Item, payd to the erle of Worcesters pleers, xiid.” In 1573—“Item, pd to Mr. Bayly for the Erle of Leicesters players, vis. viiid.” In 1574—“Given my lord of Warwicks players, xviis. “Pd the earle of Worcesters players, vs. viid.” In 1577, “Pd to my lord of Leicesters players, xvs. “Pd to my lord of Wosters players, iijs. iiijd.”

Note return to page 183 61579. “Item paid to my Lord Strange men the xith day of February at the c&obar;maundement of Mr Bayliffe, vs. “Pd at the c&obar;mandement of Mr Baliffe to the countys of Essex plears, xivs. vid.” 1510. “Pd to the earle of Darbyes players at the c&obar;maundement of Mr Baliffe, viiis. ivd.” 1581. “Pd to the earl of Worcester his players, iijs. iiijd. “Pd to the Lord Bartlett his players, iijs. ijd.” [Bartley was often written formerly for Berkeley.] Thus, in Dugdale's Chronica Series, p. 105, we have “Robert Bartley similiter, 28 Feb. Pat. 2 Car. p. 15;” and in the next page but one, the same person is called Robert Barkley: “Rob. Barkley constit. serv. regis ad legem, 12 April, Pat. 3 Car. p. 8.” 1582. “Payed to Henry Russel for the earle of Worcesters players, vs.” 1583. “Payd to Mr Alderman that he layd downe to the Lord Bartlitte his players, vs. “Pd to the Lord Shandowes players, iiis. iid.” 1584. “Geven to my lord of Oxfords pleers, iijs. iiijd. “Geven to the earle of Warr. pleers, iijs. iiijd. “Pd to the earle of Essex pleers, iijs. viijd.” 1586. “Pd to Mr Tiler for the pleyers, vs.” 1587. “Item, pd for mending of a forme that was broken by the Quenes players, xvid. “Item, Gyven to the Quenes players, xxs. “It. Gyven to my lord of Essex players, vs. “It. Gyven to therle of Leycester his players, xs. “It. Gyven to another companye, iiijs. iiijd.” “It. gyven to my lord of Staffords men, iijs. iiijd.” Accounts of the chamberlains of Stratford in the respective years.

Note return to page 184 71592. “Paid to the Queenes players, xxs.” The account of Henry Wilson, chamberlain for 1592. 1593. “Paid unto the Queenes players, xxs.” Account of John Sadler for 1593. 1596. “July 16 and 17, paid the Queenes plairs, xs.” Memorandum made by Richard Quiney at the end of a paper containing an account of the charges of his journey to London in that year. It appears by another memorandum on the same paper, that Lord Derby's and Lord Ogle's servants also visited Stratford in that year. 1597. “Item. pd for four company of players, xixs. iiijd.” Account of John Smith, chamberlain for 1597. At Stratford, however, what old Ben complains of in his Discoveries, was experienced as well as at London, and “the puppets were seen in spight of the players,” as appears by an item in the account of 1597: “Item, Pd to a man at Mr. Lewis by the appointment of Mr. Sturley then Bailiffe for the Show of the citie of Norwiche, iiis. iiijd.” So also in the chamberlain's account for 1583: “Payd to Davi Jones and his companye for his pastyme at Whitsontyde, xiiis. iiiid.” Davy Jones was an inhabitant of Stratford.

Note return to page 185 8Registr. Burg. Stratf. B.

Note return to page 186 9The account of Richard Robins, chamberlain for the year 1622. The sum paid to the King's company for depriving the town of the entertainment which these comedians meant to have given, was only six shillings. We find the same puritanical disposition in other places about this period. So in an account of the chamberlains of Kingston upon Thames, in 1621: “Pd by Mr Bailiff to a company of Players, because they should not play in the Townhall, Ol. 10s. Od.” See Lysons's Environs of London, i. 234. Again, in 1625: “To the Kings Players, because they should not play in the Townhall nor in the towne, for five yeares, Ol. 10s. Od.” Ibid.

Note return to page 187 1“Pd for the chardges at the Swanne the fyrste of October, when my Lorde of Warrwick was here, xiis. iiijd. “Payed to Willyam Smyth for halfe a pound of sugar yt was geven to my Lord when he was here, xd. “Payed for an oxe for my Lord of Warr. viil. xis. Od. “Payed for grass and dryving of the same oxe, iis.” Account of Thomas Gordayne, chamberlain for 1582. “Pd John Smith upon his bill for wyne bestowed upon my Lord of Warricke, xis. viiid. “Item for a pottel of claret wyne a pottel of sacke and half a pound of sugar for my lords officers at the grete Leet, iijs. id.” Account of Richard Courte, from Mich. 1583, to Mich. 1584. In the chamberlain's account for 1576, I find this entry: “Paid for candells the Lete court day at night, iiijd.”

Note return to page 188 2“Item paied for wyne to the Colledge when the Leight [Leet] was, vs.” Account of John Taylor and Anthony Tanner, chamberlains for 1578. “Payd for a pottel of clarett, and pottel of sacke and half a pound of suger to my lords officers at the Lyght [Leet], iiis. iid.” Account of Richard Courte from Mich. 1582, to Mich. 1583. Again, in the account for the year 1585: “Paide for one gallant of clarett wine sent to my Lords officers when they kept the Lete, ijs. “One pottle of sacke, xvid. “Sugar halfe a lb. ixd. “Paide for wine sent to my Lo. his officers at the Lete after Michaelmas, one pottle of sacke, xvid. “One pottle of claret wyne, xiid. “Sugar, halfe a lb. ixd.” In the account for 1586: “Pd for ij quarts of clarett wyne and a quart of sack at the Lete in April, ijs. vid. “Pd for half a pound of sugar, viiid. “Pd to Mr Bailiffe for wine and sugar that he gave to my Lo. his [my Lord's] Steward, ijs. ijd.” In the account for 1587: “Item for wyne and sugar bestowed upon my Lord of Warr. hys Steward at the two Letes, iiijs. id.” Again, in 1588: “It. for wyne and sugar the 21 of April bestowed on the Steward of the Lete, xvid. “It. for wyne and sugar bestowed upon hym at the Lete in October, 1588, xxiid.” The leet was, however, sometimes held at one of the principal inns, as appears by the account of John Smith, chamberlain for the year 1601: “Paid for a potell of claret wyn and a quart of sacke at the Swane when Mr Ballye did dynner with Mr Fauster at the Beare, at the great Leat there then kept, ijs. iiijd.”

Note return to page 189 3See Appendix.

Note return to page 190 4“1587. It. payd by Mr Jefferies for the fyne and for the fees for a presentment of a highe wey at the Quarter Sessions, xs. viiid. “1604. Pd for lyme to mend the guildhall before the Quarter Sessions, Sep. xxviii. ixd. “Pd for ij bottles of claret wyne bestowed on the Justices at the Quarter Sessions, Octob. 2. ijs. “It. to Heminge [the Beadle] for candles used at the Quarter Sessions, id. “1570. Item paid to Humphrey Getley for mending of the stoxe, xiid. “1566. Item paid to Mr Tyler towardes the reparac&obar;n of the Pyllorie, xviijs. vid. “1583. Pd to Richard Cowell for mending the pillory and gunne stooles, xiid. “1580. Pd to Richard Hornbie for lincks and staples to make fast the prisoners, xiid. “1592. Pd the iij day of Julie to Richard Waterman for a sill for the Guile hall, iijs.” Chamberlain's Accounts for the respective years.

Note return to page 191 5The gaol was in Bridge-street, as appears from a memorandum in A Survey of the estate of the corporation made 24 Nov. 1582: “The Jayle haull lacketh a syll on the syde towards Trowt's house.” Trowt, who was a butcher, lived in Bridge-street.

Note return to page 192 6Cibber's Lives of the Poets, vol. i. p. 130.

Note return to page 193 7As this anecdote does not stand on the authority of Mr. Shiels, or Mr. Theophilus Cibber, the person here meant, it is unnecessary to enter into any disquisition concerning their respective claims to the work here quoted. However, as this curious circumstance of literary history has been involved in some confusion, it may not be improper to make some observations upon it. It is observable that Dr. Johnson told Mr. Boswell, “that the work was entirely composed by Mr. Shiels. The booksellers (he added) gave Theophilus Cibber, who was then in prison, ten guineas to allow Mr. Cibber to be put in the title-page as the author: by this a double imposition was intended; in the first place, that it was the work of a Cibber at all, and in the second place, that it was the work of old Cibber.” Boswell's Life of Johnson, 8vo. ii. 392. Mr. Boswell adds, that Dr. Johnson has given the same account in his Life of Hammond, where he says, “the manuscript of Shiels is now in my possession.” The writer of an article in the Monthly Review for May, 1792, has strenuously endeavoured to refute this statement. “The alleged design of making the compilement pass for the work of old Mr. Cibber (he asserts) is founded on an uncharitable construction, no such thought being harboured either by the proprietors or first designer of the work.” To this, on the part of Dr. Johnson, it is only necessary to reply, that the thoughts or intentions of men are inscrutable; we can only judge of them by their actions. With what possible view could the name of Mr. Cibber be put to this work, but that it should be supposed to be the production of the father, who was known throughout England by that designation, and not that of his son, with whom for more than twenty years the publick had been acquainted by the title of Theophilus Cibber; and who during his father's life-time had no little to the designation here given him? “The materials for this work (according to the same anonymous writer's account) were collected and digested by Mr. Shiels, for which he was paid seventy pounds; but his work was revised and corrected in the proof sheets, by Theophilus Cibber, who added some new lives and notes, and received for his trouble twenty guineas in the first instance, and at a subsequent period some additional sum; and soon afterwards (we are further told) embarked for Dublin, but the ship was cast away, and every person on board perished.” He embarked for Dublin five or six years after this transaction, in the year 1758. I do not perceive any material difference between these two accounts. Mr. Theophilus Cibber is, indeed, not here acknowledged to have been in prison, though, I believe, this was the fact; and there is a slight mistake in the sum said by Dr. Johnson to have been paid him; nor does Dr. Johnson appear to have been acquainted with his labours, as a corrector, vamper, and reviser of the printed proof sheets of Shiels's work; but his work undoubtedly it originally was; and Dr. Johnson had probably perused it in its original form; and in that form, it is believed, it was destroyed, with several of his own manuscripts. The true state of the case, however, yet remains to be disclosed. The fact, I believe, is, that the only valuable additional information inserted in this work by Theophilus Cibber, was derived from the notes of the late Mr. Oldys and Mr. Coxeter. “When I left London (says Oldys, in his manuscript notes on Langbaine) in the year 1724, to reside in Yorkshire, I left in the care of the Rev. Mr. B&wblank;'s family, with whom I had several years lodged, among many other books, goods, &c. a copy of this Langbaine, in which I had written several notes, and references to further knowledge of these poets. When I returned to London in 1730, I understood my books had been dispersed; and afterwards becoming acquainted with Mr. Coxeter, I found that he had bought my Langbaine of a bookseller. As he was a great collector of plays and poetical books, this must have been of service to him; and he has kept it so carefully from my sight, that I never could have the opportunity of transcribing into this I am now writing in, the notes, I had collected in that. He died on the 10th of April, being Easter Sunday, 1747, of a fever, which grew from a cold caught at an auction of books over Exeter Change, or by sitting up late at the tavern afterwards.” After Mr. Coxeter's death, his books and MSS, were purchased by Osborne, the well-known bookseller of Gray's Inn, and were offered for sale in the year 1748. The book in question, No. 10131, in Osborne's catalogue for that year, was purchased either by T. Cibber, or by some bookseller who afterwards put it into his hands; and from the notes of Oldys and Coxeter, the principal part of the additional matter furnished by Cibber for the Lives of the Poets, was unquestionably derived. Mr. Coxeter's MSS. are mentioned in the title-page, but Oldys is unnoticed. Probably the secret history of this business was not then known.

Note return to page 194 8The Lord Chamberlain's servants, in which company Shakspeare first entered himself, performed, till the year 1600, at The Curtain in Shoreditch. See The History of the Stage, vol. iii. There had been a theatre in Whitefriars, but it was pulled down before the period we are now speaking of. In a sermon preached by John Stockwood in 1578, the preacher, computing the whole sum made by the theatre in a year, speaks of eight places for stage exhibitions in the city. As his object was to aggravate the mischief arising from plays, he undoubtedly would not have left Southwark out of his account, had there been any playhouses on the Bankside.—Stephen Gosson, in his Plays confuted in Five several Actions, no date, but written about 1580, mentions exhibitions at Paul's [St. Paul's school-room], the Blackfryars, and every other playhouse in London, but says not a word of Southwark.

Note return to page 195 9According to the writer of an old pamphlet called A Dialogue between Coach and Sedan, the first coach used in England was one given by the Earl of Arundel to Queen Elizabeth, in which she went to St. Paul's cross, to hear a sermon [preached on account of a victory] obtained over the Spaniards in 1588. Anderson, in his Hist. of Commerce, p. 421, says Fitzallan, Earl of Arundel, introduced the use of coaches in England in 1580; and the continuator of Stowe's Annals says a coach was made for the Queen by a Dutchman in 1564. However this may have been, it is certain that coaches were not in ordinary use when Shakspeare may be supposed to have first visited London.

Note return to page 196 1“Faustus, nor lord, nor knight, nor wise, nor old,   “To every place about the Towne doth ride; “He rides into the fields, Playes to behold,” &c. Epigrams written about the year 1590; printed at Middlebourg, no date, but about 1598. See also The Guls Horne-booke, by Thomas Dekker, 4to. 1609: “By this time [he is describing an ordinary] the pairings of fruit and cheese are in the voyder, cardes and dice lie stinking in the fire; the guests are all up, the guilt rapiers ready to be hanged, the French lacquey and Irish footboy shrugging at the doores, with their masters hobby horses to ride to the new play; that's the rendevous, thither they are gallopt in post; let us take a pair of oares and row lustily after them.” Here we see that even when the Globe theatre on the Bankside, in Southwark, was in high reputation, gentlemen frequently rode thither, instead of going by water. Actors themselves rode to the playhouses in London. See Taylor's Wit and Mirth, § 30. “Master Field, the player, riding up Fleet-street a great pace [going probably to the play-house in Blackfriars], a gentleman called him and asked him what play was played that day;” &c.

Note return to page 197 2“Stratford, Burgus, Ad aulam ibid. tent. vi. die Septembris anno regni d&nbar;æ Elizabethe vicesimo octavo [1586] William Tyler, Bailif. “At this hall William Smythe and Richard Courte are chosen to be aldermen in the place of John Wheler and John Shaxspere; for that Mr. Wheler doth desyer to be put out of the companye, and Mr. Shaxspere doth not come to the halles, when they be warned, nor hath not done of long tyme.” Registr. Burg. Stratf. A. I find, on inspecting the records, that our poet's father had not attended at any hall for the seven preceding years. John Shakspeare, the shoemaker, was sworn a constable the same day that his namesake was removed from his place as alderman.

Note return to page 198 3I found in the Prerogative Office, the will of Mr. Bartholomew Quiney, of Fleet-street, citizen and cloth-worker, made Feb. 27, 1593–4, and proved the 27th of March following. The name being very uncommon, I suspect he was a relation of the Quineys of Stratford.

Note return to page 199 4See the Historical Account of the English Stage, vol. iii. p. 47.

Note return to page 200 5The words in this stanza exhibited in Italicks, are not so printed in the original edition of Spencer's poem. They are here thus distinguished, because some argument is founded upon them.

Note return to page 201 6“Unseemly Sorrow, ........ ugly Barbarisme.” We learn from Spencer's Ruins of Time, that he was in England in the latter end of the year 1588. In the summer of the following year, Sir Walter Ralegh having visited him in Ireland, he accompanied Ralegh in the autumn to England, and he appears to have resided there during the remainder of that year and part of the next, during which time, the first three books of his Faery Queen were printed. His representation of the degraded state of the stage, therefore, may be supposed to relate principally to this period, and was doubtless drawn from his own observation. During several preceding years, his time was chiefly passed in Ireland; yet occasional visits even during that period gave him an opportunity of partaking of the “unhurtful sport” then furnished by theatrical exhibitions. The present poem, though in its title-page we find 1591, was certainly written in 1590 or before, and published probably in January or February, 1590–91; for in the Stationers' Register, I find the following entry: “William Ponsonby, 29 December, 1590. For his copie under the hands of D'cor Stuller and both the Wardens, a booke entituled, Complaints, conteyning sundrye small poemes of the worlds vanity, vid.” The wretched state of the stage in 1589 and 1590, is ascertained by the history and the productions of that period. Of the tragedies which were then in vogue, or, as the poet expresses it, “tyranized over the minds of men,” and which, though the “offspring of ugly barbarism and brutish ignorance,” were preferred to any of the productions of the comick muse, the greater part have perished. Such of them, however, as have been preserved, fully justify the description here given of the miserable taste of that period. See particularly Tamburlain the Great, The Spanish Tragedy, The Battle of Alcazar, Selimus Emperour of the Turkes, The Wars of Cyrus, Solyman and Perseda, &c. The preface to Tamburlaine, 8vo. 1590, as well as the piece itself, may afford a good comment on the poet's words: “Gentlemen, and courteous Readers whatsoever. I have herein published in print for your sakes the tragicall discourse of the Scythian Shepheard, My hope is, that it will be now no lesse acceptable unto you, to reade after your serious affairs and studies, than it hath been latelie delightfull for manie of you to see, when the same was shewed in London upon stages. I have purposely omitted and left out some fond and frivolous gestures, digressing and in my opinion farre unmeet for the matter; which I thought might seeme rather tedious unto the wise, then any way else to be regarded; though happilye they have bene of some conceited fondlings greatly gaped at, what times they were shewed upon the stage in their graced deformities.” Of the comedies of this period, very few have come down to us; but Wily Beguiled, Mucedorus, and the old Taming of a Shrew, which were highly admired, may serve to show, of what materials those of an inferior quality, which have perished, were made. The jiggs and other buffooneries, with which both tragedies and comedies were then frequently accompanied, are almost all lost. In the plays exhibited at this period, the authors and actors took such liberties, that the state was obliged to interfere. Strype, in his Additions to Stowe's Survey, mentions that in 1589, the servants of the Lord Strange and the Lord Admiral were, on the suggestion of Mr. Tylney [then Master of the Revels], restrained from playing, for their scurrilitie and licentiousness. In the same year (Nov. 12), the very period when Spencer appears to have visited England, and to which his verses seem particularly to relate, the Privy Council wrote a letter to the Lord Mayor of London (of which a minute may be found in the History of the English Stage), commanding him “to appoint a sufficient person, learned and of judgment, to join with the Master of the Revels and a Divine to be named by the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the reforming of the plays daily exercised and presented publickly about the city of London; where [in] the players take upon them without judgment or decorum to handle matters of divinity and state.” This is the first notice which is found of a licenser for stage entertainments, to which appointment the “scoffing scurrility” alluded to by Spencer, appears to have given rise; as, in the last century, a similar degree of licentiousness produced an Act of Parliament for the same purpose. In an old tract entitled Martin's Months Mind, which also appeared in 1589, we find a further confirmation of what has been here stated: “Never,” says the writer, “were greater tragedies tendered abroad, nor higher comedies traversed at home.”—“Roscius plays in the Senate house; asses play upon harpes, the stage is brought into the church, and Vices make plaies of church-matters.”

Note return to page 202 7By counterfaisance, Spencer appears to have meant counterfeit or fictitious representation, imitating real life. So, again, in Mother Hubbard's Tale: “&lblank; the fond ape him selfe uprearing hy, “Upon his tip-toes stalketh statelie by, “As if he were some great Magnifico, “And boldly doth among the boldest go: “And his man Reynard with fine counterfaisance “Supports his credit and his countenance.” Again, in The Faery Queen, b. i. c. viii. st. 49: “Such is the face of falshood, such the sight “Of fowle Duessa, when her borrowed light “Is ta'en away, and counterfaisance knowne.” Again, ibid, b. iii. c. viii. st. 8: “A wicked spright, &lblank; “Him needed not instruct which way were best “Him selfe to fashion likest Florimell, “Ne how to speake, ne how to use his gest, “For he in counterfesaunce did excell.” See also Cotgrave's French Dict. fol. 1611: “Farcerie. A playing, jesting, &c. a counterfeiting. “Farceur. A comedian or stage-player; a common jeaster, or counterfeiter of mens gestures.” See also Puttenham's Arte of Poesie, 4to. 1589, p. 228, “the boy-bishop with his counterfeit speeches,” and p. 243, “&lblank; a buffoon or counterfeit clown.”

Note return to page 203 8One of the comick writers whom Spencer had here in contemplation, I have no doubt, was a person who was bred at the same college where he had been educated, and who is highly praised by his contemporary Meres, in the following passage: “The best for comedye amongst us bee, Edward Earl of Oxford, Dr. Gager of Oxford, Maister Rowley, once a rare scholar of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwards of her Majesties Chapell, eloquent and wittie John Lillye, &c.” Wit's Treasury, 1598, p. 280, b. The time when Mr. Rowley flourished, as well as his Christian name, have been hitherto unascertained; and in consequence of a mistake of Antony Wood, he has been confounded with William Rowley, who was originally an actor about the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and became a popular dramatick writer in that of her successor. Wood in his first work, published in 1674, grounding himself manifestly on the passage above quoted from Meres, rightly describes this rare schollar, in the account which he has given of their poet's contemporaries: “Gulielmus Gager (says his Latin translator) poeta eximius erat, et quoad comedias conscribendas primum semper locum inter coævos obtinebat; posthabitis, nimirum, Edwardo Comiti Oxoniensi, Magistro Rowley, (is Aulam Pembrochianam apud Cantabrigienses ingenio ornavit), Ricardo Edwards, Johanni Lilly,” &c. (Hist. et Antiq. Acad. Oxon. P. II. p. 267); but he was afterwards led into an error, probably by having met in Phillips or Winstanley with the name of William Rowley as a dramatick writer; and in his subsequent English work (Ath. Oxon. 1690, i. col. 366), he observes, that “Gager was reputed the best comedian of his time, whether it was Edward Earl of Oxford, William Rowley, the once ornament for wit and ingenuity of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, Richard Edwards John Lilly,” &c. Here first we find the Christian name of this comick poet: but Wood was unquestionably mistaken; for “the rare scholar of learned Pembroke Hall” was not William Rowley the actor, who had never reposed in academick bowers, but Ralph Rowley, a learned fellow of that house, whose theatrical exertions, it may be presumed, were made a few years before Spencer's poem was published. It is clear from the words—“learned Pembroke Hall,” that Meres was in Wood's contemplation in both his works, and that in each of them he is speaking of the same person. Beside, however, the misnomer in the Athenæ, he is inaccurate in both these works, in saying that Gager (who appears to have written only Latin dramas) was preferred to Rowley and the rest. Meres furnishes no authority for such pre-eminence. They are all classed under the same general term,—“the best for comedy.” Wood should seem to have supposed that Gager, being first named, was also first in reputation; but Meres appears to have arranged these poets in chronological order. Ralph Rowley, I believe, was born in the same year with our author (1564); for I find that he became a student of Pembroke Hall in 1579, being on the first of October in that year matriculated as a member of the University. (Registr. Acad. Cantab.) In 1582–3, he took his first degree in arts; in Nov. 1583, he was elected a fellow of his house; and in 1586–7, he proceeded Master of Arts. In 1587, he was appointed Lecturer in Mathematics, and also, in conjunction with Mr. Hall, read the Greek lecture. See a list of the fellows of Pembroke College, MS. Harl. 7029, p. 383: “Rad Rowley, scholaris collegii, A. B. electus eodem tempore [Nov. 2, 1583], Anno 1586 [1586–7], incipit in art. An. 1587, Magistro Halls in usum Magistri Rowley ex parte prælecturæ Grecæ, 1lib. 108. Eodem anno prælector fit in academia Mathematicas. Anno 1589, cautio Magistri Rowley exposita est cistæ Lyndwood et Pyke, et habet in toto 2lib.” It is probable, that either in 1586, before he was chosen mathematical lecturer, or in 1588, the comick vein for which he is so highly celebrated by his contemporary Meres (who was also of Pembroke Hall, and took the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1587), led him to attempt dramatick composition, and that he furnished the stage at St. Paul's with some of those comedies, “the fine counterfaisance and due decorum” of which appeared to Spencer so admirable. Not long afterwards, he entirely relinquished his theatrical pursuits, and went into holy orders. In 1593, he became rector of Alphamston in Essex, which he exchanged, in 1597, for the rectory of Chelmsford, in the same county. (Newcourt's Repertor, ii. 8.—129.) This benefice he appears to have enjoyed till his death, which happened in 1604; and it should seem, from the following entry in the register of Chelmsford (obligingly communicated to me, by the Rev. Mr. Morgan), that he died at Cambridge: “Mr. Ralphe Rowley, late Parson of this towne, was buried in St. Marie's chancell in Cambridge, the ixth daie of Aprile, 1604.” The only production of this “rare scholar” that I have met with, is a short Latin poem, in the Cambridge Verses on the death of Sir Philip Sidney, 4to. 1587. It is, I trust, unnecessary to apologize for this long note, in commemoration of one who was probably a friend of Spencer's; and who, though a comick poet of considerable celebrity, appears to have been unknown to all our biographical antiquaries and dramatick historians of the last century.

Note return to page 204 9i. e. Nature her self. Such was the phraseology of Spencer's age; not, as we should now write, Nature's self. So, in The Faery Queen, b. iii. c. viii. st. 5: “That even Nature self envide the same.” Again, in the same canto: “&lblank; thought “She were the lady selfe whom he so long had sought.” Again, ibid. b. iii. c. i. st. 6: “But Guyon selfe ere well he was aware &lblank;.” Again, b. iii. c. iv. st. 38: “Sad life worse than glad death; and greater crosse “To see frends grave, then dead the grave self to engrosse.” Again, in Colin Clout: “Whose service high so basely they ensew, “That Cupid selfe of them ashamed is.” So also, Sidney, Arcadia, 1598, p. 379: “The 'pestle selfe,” &c. At a subsequent period, this phraseology became obsolete; for D'Avenant wrote, perhaps, with less propriety (Works, 1673, p. 243): “It shew'd like Nature's self, when she did bring “All she can promise by an early spring.”

Note return to page 205 1Kindly means natural, or rather, agreeable to truth and real life. So, in the Glosse on Spencer's Eclogue for February: “&lblank; a manner of supplication, wherein is kindly coloured the affection and speech of ambitious men.” Counter is, I believe, here licentiously used for counterfeiting, or counterfaisance. A late writer (Supplem. to Johnson's Dict. 4to. 1801), says, it means—“trial of skill,” and that it is deduced “from the adverb;” but, when counter is used in the compound, counter-action, &c. opposite action is meant; and, therefore, if we suppose a substantive to be thus formed, it would mean, not “trial of skill,” but opposition; a sense not admissible here.

Note return to page 206 2So, in Colin Clout: “Whilst thou wert hence, all dead in dole did lie.” Again, in Shakspeare's King Henry IV. Part II.: “Even such a man, so faint and spiritless, So dull, so dead in look, so woe-begone &lblank;.” Again, in A Midsummer Night's Dream: “So should a murderer look; so dead, so grim.”

Note return to page 207 3Drenched.

Note return to page 208 4Spencer sometimes borrows from himself. See his tenth Eclogue: “And roll with rest in rhymes of ribaudry.”

Note return to page 209 5“To rime and versifie; for in this word, making, our olde English poets were wont to comprehend all the skill of poetrie, according to the Greek word poiein, to make; whence commeth the name of poets.” Glosse by E. K. on Spencer's fourth Eclogue.

Note return to page 210 6Worthless persons.

Note return to page 211 7Sir Henry Wotton, speaking of Bacon.

Note return to page 212 8It is remarkable that these words are almost a translation of part of the passage found in Snidas concerning Aristotle, which I suggested to Mr. Steevens several years ago, as an apposite motto for the plays of Shakspeare; and which since has been prefixed to the several editions of this author that have been published.

Note return to page 213 9In a note on The Tears of the Muses, the Rev. Mr. Todd, in his late edition of Spenser, vol. vii. p. 335, speaking of my first edition of Shakspeare, says, that I there “strenuously maintained the belief” that our poet was the person in Spenser's contemplation in the lines above quoted. But, I conceive, the learned editor has inadvertently made this assertion; and have no doubt that his candour will induce him to agree to the statement here made in the text, when he peruses the following passage in the very same page which he has quoted, and which, by some means, seems to have escaped his attention: “If these lines [those quoted from The Tears of the Muses] were intended to allude to our author, then he must have written some comedies in or before the year 1591, and the date which I have assigned to A Midsummer Night's Dream is erroneous. I cannot expect to influence the decision of my reader, on a subject on which I have not been able to form a decided opinion myself; and, therefore, shall content myself with merely stating the difficulties on each side.” Surely those words do not furnish any ground for thinking that I then strenuously maintained the opinion ascribed to me. [Mr. Todd supposes that these lines allude to Sir Philip Sidney. Boswell.]

Note return to page 214 1See the Preliminary Observations prefixed to Spenser's Shepheard's Calender, by E. K.

Note return to page 215 2It is observable, that in speaking of that retirement from the stage, which Spenser so much laments, he says, the writer who had been once so popular, now sits “in idle cell,” a word descriptive of the sequestered habitation of an academick. So, in The Return from Parnassus, a comedy, 1606: “Academico. I'll haste me to my Cambridge cell again, “My fortunes cannot wax, but they may waine.” “When I left the freedom of my cell, which was my college (said Hooker to the Archbishop of York, when he wished to be removed from the Mastership of the Temple), yet I found some degree of it in my quiet country parsonage.” Walton's Life of Hooker. It is not very clear what is meant by the title of one of Greene's pamphlets, published in 1589; yet it perhaps alludes to Lilly's retirement from the stage, which I have supposed to have taken place in that year. The title to which I allude is, “Menaphon, Camillaés alarum to slumbering Euphues in his melancholy cell in Silexedra,” &c. Silexedra, it is true, is mentioned by Lilly at the end of his work; yet Greene might have had here a double meaning.

Note return to page 216 3Palladis Tamia, Wit's Treasury, being the second part of Wit's Commonwealth, by Francis Meres, M. A. 8vo. 1598, p. 283, b.

Note return to page 217 4See the verses on Daniel, infra, quoted from Spenser's Colin Clout's Come Home Again. Drayton's eulogy on Marlowe, though a poet of considerable merit, is not less extravagant. In his “Epistle concerning Poetry and Poets,” he seems to place him in a higher rank than Shakspeare: “Next Marlowe, bathed in the Thespian springs, “Had in him those brave translunary things, “That the first poets had; his raptures were “All air and fire, which made his verses clear; “For that fine madness still he did retain, “Which rightly should possess a poet's brain.”

Note return to page 218 5Edward Blount, who was one of the original publishers of Shakspeare's plays, in folio, was probably born in 1564, having been bound an apprentice to William Ponsonby, for ten years, from Midsummer, 1578. He was admitted to the freedom of the Stationers' Company in June, 1588.

Note return to page 219 6In 1632, Edward Blount published six of his comedies under the following title: “Sixe Court Comedies, often presented and acted before Queen Elizabeth by the Children of her Majesties Chappell and the Children of Paules. Written by the only rare poet of that time, the wittie, comicall, facetiously quicke and unparalleled, John Lilly, Master of Artes. Decies repetita placebunt.” In his Dedication to Richard Lord Viscount Lumley, he observes, “It can be no dishonour to listen to this poet's musike, whose tunes alighted in the eares of a great and ever famous Queene: his invention was so curiously strung, that Elizaes Court held his notes in admiration.” Lilly, he adds, “sat at the Sunne's table: Apollo gave him a wreathe of his own bayes without snatching: the lyre he played on had no borrowed strings.” In his Preface, he says, “Reader I have for the love I beare to posteritie, dig'd up the grave of a rare and excellent poet, whom Queene Elizabeth then heard, graced and rewarded. These papers of his lay like dead lawrels in a churchyard; but I have gathered the scattered branches up, and by charme, gotten from Apollo, made them greene againe, and set them up as epitaphes to his memory.... A sinne it were to suffer these rare monuments of wit to be covered in dust.... Oblivion shall not so trample on a sonne of the Muses, and such a sonne as they called their darling.... These his playes crowned him with applause and the spectators with pleasure. Thou cannot repent the reading of them over. When old John Lilly is merry with thee in thy chamber, thou shalt see few or none of our poets now [1632] are such wittie companions, and thank me that brought him to thy acquaintance.” The six plays here collected, are, Endymion, Alexander and Campaspe, Sappho and Phao, Galathea, Mydas, and Mother Bombie. They had originally been printed in quarto; but being, as he said, scattered and unconnected, he had the merit of making them more accessible, by printing them together in a small volume; and he added, from manuscript, the numerous songs which had been omitted in the original editions. The plays of Lilly, which were not collected in this volume, are, The Woman in the Moon, printed in quarto, in 1597, and a pastoral, entitled Loves Metamorphosis, quarto, 1600. Kirkman, a bookseller, after the Restoration, ascribed also to this author The Maids Metamorphosis; but it was printed anonymously in 1600; and on that, and other grounds, it may be doubted whether it was Lilly's composition. Wood erroneously calls the collector of Lilly's plays Sir Henry Blount.

Note return to page 220 7Discourse of English Poetry, quarto, 1586.

Note return to page 221 8See Nashe's Apologie of Pierce Pennilesse, quarto, 1593, signat. G 4. (He is speaking of Lilly, and the person whom he addresses is Gabriel Harvey.) “He that threatned to conjure up Martin's wit, hath written something in thy praise in Paphatchet [a pamphlet written by Lilly in 1589] for all you accuse him to have covertlie incenst the Earle of Oxford against you. Mark him well; he is but a little fellow, but hee hath one of the best wits in England. Should he take thee in hand againe (as he flieth from such inferior concertation), I prophecie there would be more gentle readers die of a merrie mortalitye ingendred by the eternal jests he would maule thee with, than there have done this last infection. I my self that enjoy but a mite of wit in comparison of his talent, in pure affection to my native country make my style carry a presse sail,—am faine to cut off half the streame of thy sport-breeding confusion, for feare it should cause a general hicket throughout England.” See also his Have With You to Saffron Walden, quarto, 1596, signat. X 2. b.

Note return to page 222 9Ubi supra.

Note return to page 223 1“Divine wits, for many things as sufficient as all antiquity, (I speake it not on light surmise, but considerate judgment,) to you belongs the death that doth nourish this poison; to you the paine that endure the reproofe. Lilly, the famous for facility in discourse; Spencer, best read in ancient poetry; Daniel, choice in word and invention; Drayton, diligent and formal; Th. Nashe, true English Arctine;—all you unnamed professors or friends of poetry, but by me inwardly honoured; knit your industries in private, to unite our fames in publike,.... and all so embattle your selves, that hate of virtue may not embase you.” Wits Miserie and the Worlds Madnesse, by Thomas Lodge, 4to. 1596.

Note return to page 224 2Chaucer, Spenser, and Beaumont. He considered the last named writer, though a dramatist, as disproportioned, probably on account of his superior learning.

Note return to page 225 3The dramatick poets.

Note return to page 226 4This epithet appears to have been chosen merely in allusion to Kyd's name; yet not a single comedy of his has come down to us. He was the author of The Spanish Tragedy (to which Jonson himself made additions); the tragedy of Cornelia, both printed; and probably several others, that have been lost.

Note return to page 227 5Of Marlowe, some account will be given hereafter.

Note return to page 228 6How congenial the sentiments of Spenser and Lilly were, with respect to the decorum of the stage, and the true ends and objects of comedy, appears from the following passage in Lilly's prologue, at Blackfriars, to Sappho and Phaon, 1584; which, when compared with the verses already quoted from the Tears of the Muses, afford considerable support to my interpretation of that passage. See particularly the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh stanzas: “Our intent was at this time, to more inwarde delight, not outwardelighnes, and to breede, if it might be, soft smiling, not lowd laughing: knowing it to the wise to be as great pleasure to heare counsell mixed with witte, as to the foolish to have sport mingled with rudenesse. They were banished the theater at Athens and from Rome hissed, that brought parasites on the stage with apish actions, or fooles with uncivill habites, or curtizans with immodest words. We have endevored to be as far from unseemly speeches, to make your eares glow, as we hope you will be free from unkinde reportes, to make our cheekes blush.”

Note return to page 229 7In his Euphues and his England (signat. Hh 2 b.), he says, he can speak little of Queen Mary's reign, being then scarce born. Mary ascended the throne, June 1, 1553. I find, from the register of the University (in which he is described as “plebeii filius”), that he was matriculated in 1571. He is there said to be seventeen; which does not exactly agree with Wood's account.

Note return to page 230 8See the Commentary on Spenser's Fifth Eclogue, 4to. 1579.

Note return to page 231 9Ath. Oxon. i. 295.

Note return to page 232 1In Mr. Capell's collection, in Trinity College, Cambridge, is an edition of Lilly's Euphues, without date; which I believe to be the first. It consists of eighty-one leaves, and has not the apologetical address to the University of Oxford, which appears to have been written in consequence of some offence taken, by the Oxonians, at his book. My edition, which is dated 1579, and is said, in the title-page, to be “corrected and augmented,” has that address; and I, therefore, suppose it to be the second. The work, having been entered in the Stationers' register, in 1578, I imagine, was published either in the end of that year, or early in 1579. Lilly himself tells us it was first published in winter. The second edition appeared in the summer or autumn of the same year (1579).

Note return to page 233 2Catal. Lib. Manuscript. Angliæ, &c. Col, Univers. 152, 13. MS. Harl. 1877.

Note return to page 234 3About two years after Lilly appears to have made a temporary retreat from the stage, the choir-boys of St. Paul's were prohibited from playing: and in 1591, or before, their playhouse was shut up, probably on account of the scurrility and licentiousness which had prevailed for two or three preceding years in many of the theatres; and this prohibition, I believe, continued for about ten years. In the preface to Lilly's Endymion, published in 1591, the printer says, “Since the playes in Paules were dissolved, there are certain comedies come to my handes, which were presented before her Majestie at severall tymes by the Children of Paules. This is the first,” &c. See also Nashe's Have With You to Saffron Walden, 4to. 1596 (signat. G 4. b.), “Troth, I would hee might for mee, (that's all the harme I wish him,) for then we neede never wish the playes at Paules up againe; but if we were wearie with walking, and loth to goe too farre to seeke sport, into the Arches we might step, and heare him [Gabriel Harvey] plead, which would be a merrier comedie than ever was old Mother Bombie” [one of Lilly's plays]. In 1600, or 1601, this interdiction was taken off, and the children of St. Paul's were again permitted to play. Martin's Antonio and Mellida, Jack Drum's Entertainment, and Dekker's Satiromastix, were performed by them in 1601. Lilly, after having retired for some years, appears to have again resumed the pen; for his Woman in the Moon was entered in the Stationers' register, September 22, 1595, and published in 1597; but the theatre where his former pieces were represented being then shut, it appears to have been acted only at Court, probably by the children of his Majesty's chapel, or the children of the Revels. It may, however, have been presented at a former period. That Lilly was living in 1597, is ascertained by his verses prefixed to a book entitled Christian Passions, by H. Lok, published in that year. The exact time of his death is not known, but it probably happened soon after the year 1600. No particulars of his person, or private life, have come down to us, except that he was married; that he was a little man, and a great taker of tobacco.

Note return to page 235 4See the passage quoted in note 6, next page, where they are spoken of as “musty fopperies of antiquity.” In the History of the English Stage, it will be seen that the following plays, founded on classical subjects, were performed by the children of St. Paul's, between the years 1571 and 1589: 1571, Iphigenia. 1573–4, Alcmeon. Timoclea at the Siege of Thebes. Perseus and Andromeda. 1576, History of Errour (doubtless from Plautus). Before 1579, Cupid and Psyche. 1579, Scipio Africanus. 1580, Pompey. 1584, Alexander and Campaspe. Sappho and Phaon. Galathea. Between 1585 and 1589, Endymion, Midas.

Note return to page 236 5Latin quotations are frequently found in the plays produced at the period here spoken of, particularly in those which were represented by the choristers of St. Paul's.

Note return to page 237 6This appears from the following passages in an old play, entitled “Jack Drum's Entertainment, or the Comedy of Pasquil and Katherine, 4to. 1601, which was acted by the Children of St. Paul's. In the Introduction, in answer to the Tyreman, who complains that the Author had snatched the play-book from him, and with violence kept the boys from entering on the stage, one of the children says,— “You much mistake the action, Tyerman; “His violence proceeds not from a mind “That grudgeth pleasure to this generous presence, “But doth protest all due respect and love “Unto this choice selected audience.” Again, in the fifth Act: “Sir Edw. “Now by my troth, and [if] I had thought on't, too “I would have had a play; i' faith, I would. “I saw the Children of Pauls last night, “And troth they pleas'd me pretty pretty well; “The apes in time will do it handsomely. “Pla. “I' faith, “I like the audience that frequenteth there “With much applause. A man shall not be choked “With the stench of garlick, nor be pasted to “The barmy jacket of a beer-brewer. “Brah. Jun. “Tis a good gentle Audience; and I hope the boys “Will come one day into the Court of Requests.” [This, I believe, is nothing more than a poor pun: ‘I hope they will one day be in request.’] “Brah. Sen. “Ay, and [if] they had good plays; but they produce “Such musty fopperies of antiquity, “And do not suit the humorous age's back “With cloaths in fashion.” See also the Prologue to Antonio and Mellda, 1601, acted by the children of St. Paul's: “The wreath of pleasure and delicious sweets “Begirt the gentle front of this fair troop. “Silent and most respected auditors, “For wit's sake do not dream of miracles. “Alas, we shall but falter, if you lay “The least sad weight of an unused hope “Upon our weakness: only we give up “The worthless present of slight idleness “To your authentick censure.... “But oh, the healthy dryness of her braine “Foil to your fertile spirits, is ashamed “To breathe her blushing numbers to such ears: “Yet, most ingenious, deign to veil our wants.” So also, Lilly himself, in the Prologue to his Campaspe: “We here conclude; wishing that although there be in your precise judgments an universal mislike, yet we may enjoy by your wonted courtesies, a general silence.” Again, in the Prologue to Sapho and Phaon, 1594, when it was acted at Blackfriars: “&lblank; yet we have ventured to present our exercise before your judgments, when we know them [their exercise] full of weak matter, yielding rather to the curtesie which we have ever found than to the precisenes which we ought to feare.” Again, in the Prologue to his Mydas: “We are jealous of your judgments, because you are wise; of our own performance, because we are unperfect; of our author's device, because he is idle. Only this doth encourage us;—that presenting our studies before gentlemen, though they receive an inward mislike, we shall not be hissd with an open disgrace. Stirps rudis urtica est; stirps generosa rosa.” See also the concluding speech of Marston's Antonio's Revenge, performed at St. Paul's, in 1601 or 1602: “And O if ever time create a Muse “That to the immortal fame of virgin faith “Dares once engage his pen to write her death, “Presenting it in some black tragedy, &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; “May it have gentle presence, and the scenes suckd up “By calm attention of choice audience.” That the audience at this theatre consisted only of men, appears from Marston's Epilogue to Antonio and Mellida; in which, as well as in some of Lilly's plays, the address is only to the male sex; “Gentlemen. Though I remain an armed Epilogue,” &c. See also Lilly's Prologue to Midas: “Gentlemen; so nice is the world,” &c.; and the quotation above, from a subsequent part of the same prologue. So, in the Induction of Jack Drum's Entertainment, played at St. Paul's: “In good faith, gentlemen, I think we shall be forced to give you right Jack Drums Entertainment,” &c. The Epilogue to Lilly's Galathea, where we find “You ladies may see,” &c. was a court epilogue. In the theatres, where women were admitted as well as men, those supplicatory addresses are to both sexes. See the Epilogue to As You Like It, and many other plays. The price of admission into the theatre of St. Paul's, appears to have been double to what was demanded at the playhouse at Newington Butts, which was then specifically called The Theatre, and probably to the price of admission at the Curtain, at that period; a circumstance which contributed to render the audience more select. See Lilly's Pap with a Hatchet, &c. [1589], Signat. D 3. in marg.: “If it be shewed at Paules, it will cost you fourepence, at the Theater twopence.”

Note return to page 238 7See particularly The Comedy of Errors, and The Two Gentlemen of Verona.

Note return to page 239 8“Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths; “Our stern alarums chang'd to merry meetings; “Our dreadful marches to delightful measures; “Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front, “And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds, “To fright the souls of fearful adversaries, “He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber, “To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.” K. Richard III. Act I. Sc. I. “Is the warlike sound of drum and trump turn'd to the soft noise of lyre and lute? The neighing of barb'd steeds, whose loudness fill'd the air with terrour, and whose breaths dimmed the sun with smoak, converted to delicate tunes and amorous glances,” &c. Campaspe, 1584. Here we find the germ of the preceding passage, in which Shakspeare, with his usual felicity, has expanded Lilly's thought. This parallelism was first pointed out by Mr. Reid.

Note return to page 240 9“That want with comick sock to beautify “The painted theatres, and fill with pleasure “The listeners' eyes and eares with melody.” In the last line, I conceive Spenser particularly alluded to Lilly's songs, which are eminently smooth and elegant in their composition, and doubtless had the aid of such musick as then was most in vogue.

Note return to page 241 9So, in Florio's Second Frutes, 4to. 1591: “But not I, nor this place, may halfe suffice for his [Lord Leicester's] praise, which the sweetest singer of all our western shepheards hath so exquisitely depicted, that, as Achilles by Alexander was accounted happy for having such a rare emblazoner of his magnanimitie as the Alconian poete, so I account him thrice fortunate in having such a herauld of his virtues as Spencer.”

Note return to page 242 1The Eclogue here quoted first appeared in Davison's Poetical Rhapsodies, 8vo. 1602; where it is entitled “An Eclogue made long since on the Death of Sir Philip Sidney;” and it is subscribed with the letters, A. W. In the Museum, among Sir Symonds D'Ewes's manuscripts, is one (MS. Harl. 280, fol. 99) containing, “a catalogue of all the poems in ryme and measured verse, by A. W.,” and the first line of each poem is given. At the end is a notice, that “in a parchment book bound with The Shepheard's Calendar is an Eclog on the Death of Sir Philip Sidney, by A. W. beginning ‘Perin, aread,’ &c.” which is the eclogue in question; and it is highly probable that it was written immediately after Sidney's death. The initial letters, A. W. I suspect to have denoted Arthur Warren, of whose avowed productions, the only poem that I have seen is entitled “The Poor Mans Passions, and Poverties Patience,” 4to. 1605, which is in my collection.

Note return to page 243 2“Willy is dead, “That wont to lead “Our flocks and us in mirth and shepherds' glee. &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; “Of none but Willy's pipe they made account &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; “We dream'd our Willy aye should live, “So sweet a sound his pipe did give.”

Note return to page 244 3In like manner, Spenser, wishing to show his respect and gratitude to his patron, Arthur Lord Grey, on his government of Ireland, instead of mentioning, in express terms, the country to which he was sent, tells us, that Artegall, i. e. the equal or just Arthur (a fictitious name, formed from the first syllable of Lord Grey's Christian name, and the French word egal), went to succour the lady Irena, the metathesis of Ierna or Ierne, the ancient name of that kingdom: “And such was he of whom I have to tell “The champion of true justice, Artegall, “Whom (as ye lately mote remember well,) “An hard adventure which did then befall “Into redoubled peril forth did call: “That was, to succour a distressed dame “Whom a strong tyrant did unjustly thrall, “And from the heritage which she did claime “Did with strong hand withhold; Grantorto was his name. “Wherefore that lady which Irena hight, “Did to the Faerie Queene her way addresse “To whom complayning her afflicted plight “She her besought of gratious redresse: “That soveraigne queene, that mightie emperesse, “Whose glorie is, to aide all suppliants pore, “And of weake princes to be patronesse, “Chose Artegall to right her to restore, “For that to her he seem'd best skil'd in righteous lore.” Faery Queen, b. v. c. i. st. 3, 4.

Note return to page 245 4“Out of names (says Camden), the busie head of man, continually working, hath wrought, out of liking or dislike, allusions, very common in all ages and among all men.... An allusion is, as it were, a dalliance or playing with words, like in sound, but unlike in sense, by changing, adding, or substracting a letter or two; so that words nicking and resembling one the other, are appliable to different significations.... The Greekes (to omit infinite others,) nicked Antiochus Epiphanes, with Epinanes, that is, the furious. The Romans likewise played with bibbing Tiberius Nero, calling him Biberius Mero. So, Tully called the extorting Verres, in the actions against him, Verrens, as sweep-all. So, in Quintilian, the sower fellow Placidus was called Acidus; and of late, one called Scaliger, Aliger.” Remaines, 4to. 1605. To these observations of Camden, I may add, that in the maxim of the moralists, which allows us, in conversation, to be facetosi, but not acetosi, a similar conceit may be discerned. Spenser, therefore, to whom all ancient learning was familiar, had, we see, classical authority for this practice. About forty years before, Dr. Collet, the learned and pious Dean of St. Paul's, in the code of laws which he wrote for the government of his school, did not think it unbecoming his gravity to indulge in a similar playfulness of language. “And then (says he, let them read) Institutum Christiani Hominis, which that learned Erasmus made at my requests, and the boke called Copia, of the same Erasmus; and then other authors Christian; as Lactantius, Prudentius, and Probus and Sedulius, and Juvencus and Baptista Mantuanus, and suche other as shall be thought convenient, and most to purpose unto the true Laten speeche; all barbary, all corruption, all Laten adulterate, which ignorant blind foles brought into this worlde, and with the same hath distayned and poysonid the old Laten speche, and the verage Romayne tongue, whiche in the tyme of Tully and Sallust and Virgill and Terence was usid, whiche also Sainte Jerome and Sainte Ambrose, and Sainte Austen, and many holy doctors lernid in their tymes: I saye, that filthynes, and all suche abusion, whiche the later blinde worlde brought in, whiche more rather may be called blotterature, than litterature, I utterlye abannyshe and exclude out of this Scole.” Knight's Life of Dean Collet, p. 364.

Note return to page 246 5Colin Clout's Come Home Again: “Ah Colin, then said Hobbinol, the blame “Which thou imputest, is too general; “As if not any gentle wit of name “Nor honest mind, might there* [Subnote: *i. e. at Court.] be found at all. “For well, I wot, sith I my selfe was there, “To wait on Lobbin, (Lobbin well thou knowest,) “Full many worthie ones then waiting were “As ever else in prince's court thou viewest.” Colin, it should be remembered, is Spenser, and Hobbinol, his friend Gabriel Harvey, who is here speaking of patronage and the Court. Harvey, in his Pierce's Supererogation enumerates Lord Leicester among his friends and patrons, “to whose worshipful and honourable favours (says he) I have been beholding for letters of extraordinary commendation, such, as some men of good experience have doubted whether they ever vouchsafed the like to any of either University.” See also Three Proper and Wittie Familiar Letters, &c. 4to. 1580, p. 27. Robin (usually mis-spelt Robbin) was the common substitute for Robert in the age of Queen Elizabeth, and long afterwards; and was used in addressing persons high in authority and rank. Thus Lord Essex, in a letter to Sir Robert Sidney, Governor of Flushing, March 4, 1596–7, addresses him by this familiar appellation. (See Memoirs of the Sidneys, p. 115, Sid. Papers, vol. i.) Nor was such an address considered undignified, or too familiar, when applied, on the stage, to a nobleman; for, in The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntington, 4to. 1601, we find these lines: “Alas, my Robbin, what distemper'd griefe “Drinks up the roseate colour of thy cheekes?” A few years after the publication of Colin Clout, Lobbin was so well known to have there designated Robert Earl of Leicester, that Bishop Bedel, in a poem on the Gunpowder Plot, written, in some measure, in imitation of the obsolete style of Spenser's pastorals (which lay long in manuscript, and was at length published, for a political purpose, with a spurious title, in 1713), uses it as a designation of another nobleman with the same Christian name, Robert Cecil Earl of Salisbury. I quote from a MS. among Archbishop Sancroft's papers, at Oxford, which varies, in some measure, from the printed copy: “I turned to hearken this matter at full; “And for the rest, trust me, if you wool: “Of many good shepheards I heard the same, “And from the sage Lobbins own mouth it came; “The wise Lobbin, that fame doth resound, “As true a shepheard as lives on ground.”

Note return to page 247 6“Elphin is dead, and in his grave is laid; “O, to impart it how my heart it grieveth! “Cruel that fate, that so the time betray'd, “And of our joys untimely us depriveth. &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; “Who would not die, when Elphin now is gone, “Living that was the shepheard's true delight, “With whose blest spirit (attending him alone) “Virtue to heaven directly took her flight. &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; “Summer's long'st day shall shepheards not suffice “To sit and tell full stories of thy praise, “Nor shall the longest winters night comprize “Their sighes for him, the subject of their layes.” Idea, the Shepheards Garland, fashioned in nine Eglogues, 4to. 1593, Egl. vi.—(I quote, however, from the edition of 1619.) But how is it ascertained that Elphin is the representation of Sir Philip Sidney? The mystery is explained in Drayton's Seventh Eglogue: describing, as appears from the context, and the margin, Mary Countess of Pembroke, he says: “This is that nymph on that great western waste, “Her flockes far whiter than the driven snow, “Fair shepheardesse, clear Willies banks that grac'd, “Yet she them both for purenesse doth out-go,   “To whom all shepheards dedicate their layes,   “And on her altars offer up their bayes. “Sister sometime she to that shepheard was, “That yet for piping never had his peere; “Elphin, that did all other swaines surpasse, “To whom she was of living things most dear;   “And on his death-bed, by his latest will,   “To her bequeath'd the secrets of his skill.” In a marginal note on the word “Willies,” the author has added—“A river running by Wilton near to the plain of Salisbury.”

Note return to page 248 7Thus also Edmund Scory, or Scorie (who I suspect was a god-son of Spenser's, being the son of Silvanus Scory, from whom probably Spenser's eldest son Silvanus derived his baptismal name), revealed only to the curious his name, which was “expressed and not expressed,” by being thus subscribed to some commendatory verses prefixed to Drayton's Heroical Epistles in 1598: E. Sc. Gent. Duris decus omen. The words under the initials of his names, of which the meaning is not very apparent, are an anagram, and the letters, properly arranged, form Edmundus Scorie. Of Edmund Scory, and his father Silvanus, who was the son of John Scory, Bishop of Hereford, and was a patron of poets, some account may be found in Wood's Ath. Oxon. i. 367, 682. Edmund, in 1617, was knighted: and in the later editions of Drayton's Poems, his name is written at length; a circumstance which was not discovered till long after the foregoing observation was made. He is author of a short account of the assassination of Henry the Fourth of France, and a eulogy on that monarch, a small quarto published in 1610.

Note return to page 249 8Thomas Sackville, the first Earl of Dorset.

Note return to page 250 9Though this word is employed, the representation here described was, in fact, only a bust, which is yet preserved in the Bodleian Library. See Wood's Hist. and Antiq. of the University of Oxford, vol. ii. part ii. p. 925, 4to. 1796.

Note return to page 251 1Rex Platonicus, &c. ab Isaaco Wake, publico academiæ ejusdem oratore, 4to. 1607, p. 116. The following anecdote, though somewhat ludicrous, may yet be introduced with sufficient propriety, in the discussion of so light a subject as ancient paronomasy, more especially as it serves to show that Spenser was by no means singular in thus playing on the names of his contemporaries; and that even a grave and learned divine of the same period, who afterwards sat in the archiepiscopal throne of Canterbury, did not think it beneath him to indulge, like our British Solomon, in this species of wit. The anecdote to which I allude is recorded by Mr. Aubrey, in his Life of Dr. Ralph Kettel, Master of Trinity College, in Oxford, from the year 1598 to 1643, when he died: and oddly enough, Sir Isaac Wake, to whom we are indebted for that related above, is here also a principal agent. “I cannot (says Aubrey) forget a story that Robert Skinner, Bishop of Oxon, told me of one Slymaker, a fellow of the college [Trinity College, Oxford], long since. The custom was in those days to go every Saturday night, I think, to Joshua [Joseph] Barnes' shop the bookseller, opposite the west door of St. Mary's, when the news was brought from London, &c. This impudent clown would always be hearkening to people's whisperings, and overlooking their letters,—that he was much taken notice of. Sir Isaac Wake, who was a witty man, was resolved he would put a trick upon him, and understood that such a Sunday Slymaker was to preach at St. Mary's: so Sir Isaac, the Saturday before, reads a very formal letter to some person of quality, that ‘Cardinal Baronius was turned Protestant, and was marching with an army of forty thousand men against the Pope.’ Slymaker hearkened with greedy ears; and the next day, in his prayer before the sermon, beseeched God of his infinite mercy and goodness to give a blessing to the army of Cardinal Baronius, who was turned Protestant, and was marching with an army of forty thousand men,—and so ran on. He had a Stentorian voice, and thundered it out. The auditors all stared, and were amazed. Abbot (afterwards Bishop of Sarum) was then Vice-Chancellor, and when Slymaker came out of the pulpit, sent to him, and asked him his name. ‘Slymaker,’ said he. ‘No, (said the Bishop) tis Lye-maker.’” One of the circumstances here mentioned may nearly ascertain the chronology of this story. The Vice-Chancellor must have been, not Robert Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, as Aubrey erroneously supposed (that prelate never having filled that office), but Dr. George Abbot, afterwards Bishop of London, and finally Archbishop of Canterbury, who was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, in 1600, 1603, and 1605; to one of which periods, therefore, this anecdote must be referred. Dr. Skinner, Bishop of Oxford, the relater of the story, was admitted into Trinity College in 1605. Henry Slymaker became a student, at Oxford, about the year 1592; took the degree of Master of Arts in 1598, and was afterwards elected a Fellow of Trinity College. Aubrey gives Sir Isaac Wake the title by which he was afterwards distinguished; but he was not then knighted. He became a member of the University of Oxford in 1593; probationary fellow of Merton College, in 1598; and Orator of the University, in 1604. He received the honour of knighthood, at Royston, in 1619; and was afterwards employed as an ambassador, in Savoy, Piedmont, Italy, &c. A further account of him may be found in Fuller's Worthies (Norfolk), p. 286; and in Wood's Ath. Oxon. p. 573.

Note return to page 252 2If it should be asked, “Why, if this matter was understood, at least, by the curious, did no one inform posterity that Lilly was the person here eulogized by Spenser?” to this question I shall reply by another. Why did not some contemporary writer inform us who the several poets were, whom Spenser has praised in the verses quoted in the next section, under the names of Harpalus, Corydon, Palin, Alcon, Palemon, and Action? all of whom unquestionably were, at that time, known to the curious and more enlightened perusers of Spenser's poetry. Why did not some one inform us, when Shakspeare first came to London, what was his original breeding and education; what was his father's trade; which was his first play, and when it was produced; what was the order and succession of his dramas; when he finally left the theatre, and what fortune he acquired by it? Why did none of the writers, of the time, inform us, who was the original author of Titus Andronicus; who was the writer of the old plays on which Shakspeare formed his Henry the Sixth? Why did no one tell us who was the author of the several plays falsely published under his name, in his life-time; concerning which, he himself never took the trouble to undeceive the world? All these were facts known to many at that time. Sir Walter Raleigh told the clergyman who attended him, just before he lost his head, that his adversary, Essex, had been taken off by a trick. This trick we now know; but why did not that clergyman, or any other of his contemporaries, inform us what that trick was? Shakspeare, we are told, in the contest between him and Ben Jonson, “put him down, and made him bewray his credit.” Why did no one throw some light on this mysterious account, and inform us how he discomfited his surly antagonist, and transmit to us the ballad, or epigram, or lampoon, by which this literary victory was achieved? The truth is, our ancestors paid very little attention to posterity: they thought many things trifles, and unworthy of notice, which we consider important; and have left us in the dark about many other curious particulars, as well as these, which, at least, the literary part of their successors would be extremely glad to ascertain. The biographer of our poet has, above all others, especial reason to lament the literary penury of his contemporaries, whose admiration of his genius, high as it was, never led them to transmit to posterity any particulars of his private life, or dramatick history.

Note return to page 253 3The metathesis of Caliban, for Cannibal, is obvious. And still more appositely, in Measure for Measure, and in the Second Part of King Henry IV. by the change of the first letter, we have (in burlesque) Canibal, for Hanibal.

Note return to page 254 4See Jonson's Entertainment at Althorpe, 4to. 1603: “We'll expresse in every thing “Oriana's well-coming.” In the margin, on the word Oriana, we find this note: “Quasi oriens Anna.” See also Hymenæi, a masque, by the same writer, on the marriage of Robert Earl of Essex and Lady Frances Howard, 4to. 1606: “And see, where Juno, whose great name “Is Unio in the anagram, “Displayes her glistering state,”&c.

Note return to page 255 5Though the general prevalence of verbal devices, in the age of Spenser, is well known, yet, as they have been long out of fashion, it may not be improper to collect, in this place, a few examples of these obsolete fancies. Philip Stubbes, in the first edition of his Anatomie of Abuses, 1vo. 1583, thoughout his work describes Anglia, or England, under the name of Ailgna; and, about sixty years afterwards, the distresses of Ireland were displayed in a comedy called Cola's Fury, or Lirenda's Misery. So, Thomas Lupton, in his book entitled Too Good to be True, &c. 4to. 1584, describes a kind of Utopia, or country of imaginary perfection, under the awkward metathesis of Mauqsun [Nusquam], and the whole dialogue (for that is the form of his work) is carried on by two speakers, each of whose names is an anagram: Siuqila [Aliquis], born in a most fruitful island, called Ailgna [i. e. Anglia], and Omen [Nemo.] Theodore Beza, Spenser's contemporary, with whose writings he doubtless was well acquainted, concealed himself under the double veil of translation and anagram, substituting for his Christian and surname Adeodatus Seba. “Carmina ejus (says Sir Thomas Pope Blount, in his Censura Authorum) leguntur. tom. iii. Delit. Gal. sub nomine Adeodati Sebæ, Vesalitensis, sub quo latere voluit.” John Penry, the well-known schismatick, in 1589, impudently dedicated his Theses Martinianæ to John Cankerbury, meaning the learned and pious John Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus also Orchesographies, a curious treatise on dancing, in French (for the notice of which I am indebted to the ingenious Mr. Douce), was published in 4to. in 1584, by Jean Tabouret, under the anagrammatical name of Thoinot Arbeau. In like manner, a Dialogue between the Crosse in Cheap and Charing Crosse, was published in 1641, by Henry Peacham (who was about twenty-two years younger than Spenser), under the anagram of Ryhen Pameach: and Sir Symonds D'Ewes, in his Memoirs of his own life, a manuscript in the British Museum, speaking of Sir Francis Bacon's being created Viscount St. Alban, in 1621, informs us that the wits of the time then said, that Nabal, being folly or foolishness, and the true anagram of Alban, might well set forth his fond and impotent ambition.” MS. Harl. 640. So common were these fancies in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. See also p. 219, n. 8, where other examples of similar literal devices will be found. After the Restoration, Dryden, as I have shown in his Life, shadowed his friend, Sir Charles Sidley, under the name of Lisideius, the anagram of his surname, Latinized (Sidleius); and, above a century after Spenser's verses were written, Swift concealed, or attempted to conceal, the name or title of Decanus [the Dean], under that of Cadenus; and has employed the same kind of conceit in his verses entitled Pethon the Great. He is, perhaps, the last celebrated writer in whose works such fancies are found.

Note return to page 256 6Spenser's friend, E. K., in his Commentary on The Shepheard's Calendar (General Argument), tells us, that “to the speciall meaning and intent of a few of his Eclogues he was not privy.” In the introductory remarks on the Eclogue for November, he observes, “In this eleventh Eclogue hee laments the death of some maiden of great blood, whom hee calleth Dido. The personage is secret and to me unknowne, albeit of him selfe I often required the same:” and in his Glossary on the thirty-eighth line, he says, “The great shepheard is some man of high degree; but the person both of the shepheard and of Dido is unknown, and closely buried in the authour's conceipt.” This conceit I shall now endeavour to unfold. The “maiden of great blood,” concealed under the name of Dido, and lamented in the eleventh Eclogue, was, I believe, an illegitimate daughter of Robert Earl of Leicester, by Douglas Howard Lady Sheffield, the widow of John, the second Lord Sheffield. The “great shepherd,” Lobbin, is, in the Eclogue, said to be her father, and Lobbin was assuredly Lord Leicester. (See p. 200, n. 5.) The young lady having, I apprehend, been christened Elizabeth (probably after the Queen, for, at the time of her birth, Leicester and Lady Sheffield were supposed to be married), is shadowed under the name of Virgil's Dido, or Elisa. Her father, it should be remembered, resided much at Penshurst, in Kent, and hence that county is made the scene of this pastoral: “Shepheards, that by your flocks on Kentish downes abyde, “Wail ye this wofull waste of nature's warke, “The fairest flowre,” &c. (See also Three Proper and Familiar Letters, &c. ut supra, p. 35: “I imagine me (says Gabriel Harvey to Spenser) to come into a goodly Kentishe garden of your old Lords, or some other nobleman,” &c.) Mr. Warton was of opinion that this Eclogue was written at Penshurst; a notion which adds strength to my conjecture. The poet had there, perhaps, seen the beautiful young maiden, whom he laments, carried to the grave. With this solution of the concealment so studiously preserved in this Eclogue, several of the verses very exactly correspond. The residence of the person lamented is ascertained to have been in Kent, by the circumstance of the Kentish shepherds being called upon to lament the maiden, “whose presence was their pryde,—whose absence is their carke;” and the relation and grief of a father, for the loss of a beloved daughter, is thus clearly pointed out, though overlooked by the glossarist, E. K. who erroneously supposed Lobbin to be the lover, instead of the parent, of the maiden deplored: “&lblank; Dido is dead alas, and drent, “Dido, the great shepheard his daughter sheene. &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; “O thou greate shepheard Lobbin, how great is thy grief! “Where bene the nosegayes that she dight for thee “The colourd chaplets wrought with a chiefe “The knotted rush rings and gilt rosemarie? “For she deemed nothing too deere for thee.... &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; “But maugre death, and dreaded sisters deadly spight, “And gates of hel and fyrie furies ferse, “She hath the bonds broke of eternal night, “Her soule unbodied of the burdenous corpse: “Why then weepes Lobbin so, without remorse?   “O Lobb, thy losse no longer lament,   “Dido is dead, but into heaven hent.” Douglas Howard, the mother of Dido or Elisa, was one of the daughters of William Lord Howard, of Effingham, and sister to Charles Howard, the second Lord Effingham, and finally Earl of Nottingham and Lord High Admiral or England; and the great insult and injustice shown by Leicester to this lady, in repudiating her, for the purpose of marrying Letitia, the widow of Walter, and mother of Robert Earl of Essex, was, perhaps, one of the causes of Nottingham's deadly hatred to the last-mentioned nobleman. John Lord Sheffield, her first husband, died in January, 1569–70; and soon afterwards an illicit commerce appears to have taken place between his widow and Lord Leicester (Dugdale's Baronage, ii. 222), which was then considered a marriage; but which, though the ceremony is said to have been celebrated in the presence of Mr. (afterwards Sir Edward) Dyer, and another gentleman, she was never able to establish; and afterwards marrying Sir Edward Stafford, in the life-time of Lord Leicester, she appears to have acknowledged its invalidity. The fruits of that commerce were, I believe, this daughter, who was, perhaps, born in 1571, and a son, born in 1573, and christened Robert, who afterwards was well known as Sir Robert Dudley, and finally assumed the title of the Duke of Northumberland. His age is ascertained by his admission as a member of Christ-church, in the University of Oxford, in 1587, having been matriculated May 7th, in that year, and being then fourteen. [Acad. Oxon. Registr.] The daughter, it may be presumed, died early in 1578, about seven years old; and dying so young, under such equivocal circumstances, may not have been thought worthy of the notice of Dugdale, Collins, or any other of our genealogical historians. In September, 1578, Lord Leicester, while Lady Sheffield was living, married Letice, the widow of Walter Earl of Essex, who had died in Ireland, not without suspicion of poison, in 1576. Spenser, from about 1579 to 1580, being in Lord Leicester's service, probably wrote this Eclogue, to sooth his patron's grief for the loss of an amiable child, perhaps early in 1578, and doubtless previously to his marriage with Lady Essex. It was published in 1579. After it had been written, when Leicester's desertion of Lady Sheffield had brought some disgrace on him, and he and Spenser were not on the most cordial terms, it is not surprising that our poet, though often entreated, should not divulge, even to his friend and commentator, who the persons meant in this pastoral were, being perhaps somewhat ashamed of it. Nor had the commentator the same means to discover who Lobbin was, that we have; for the lines which I have quoted from Colin Clout (see p. 200, n. 5), did not appear till sixteen years after his Commentary was written. He was, however, guilty of a great oversight in supposing “the great shepheard, Lobbin,” the lover, instead of the father, of the maiden lamented; a notion which the context shows to be perfectly unfounded. Some months after the preceding note was written, I met with a strong confirmation of my hypothesis in the celebrated libel entitled Leicester's Commonwealth, originally published in 1584: “But after this, his lust compelling him to another place, he [Leicester] would needs make a post contract with Lady Sheffield, and so hee did, begetting two children upon her; the one a boy called Robin Sheffield, now living, some time brought up at Newington, and the other a daughter, born, as is knowen, at Dudley Castle.” The words “now living,” applied, in contradistinction, to Robin Sheffield (as the writer [the well-known Robert Parsons] chooses to call him), informs us, that his sister [our Dido] was then dead. At the birth of this child, if we may believe the author of that piece, some deception had been practised by Leicester, or Lady Sheffield, in procuring her sister, Lady Dudley, the wife of Edward Lord Dudley, to pretend to be with child, and to be delivered at Dudley Castle; which shows, that this was Lady Sheffield's first child by Leicester; for had her son, Robert, been previously born and acknowledged, any such artifice, at a subsequent period, would have been needless. As a shepherd of the name of Thenot is introduced more than once in the Pastorals of Spenser, what I am now about to observe, is certainly not entitled to much weight, nor indeed does my hypothesis, in my apprehension, stand in need of any additional support: yet I cannot forbear to remark, that the poet, when in his eleventh Eclogue he had occasion to introduce two speakers, himself and another, might have thought that Thenot was an interlocutor peculiarly suited to bear a part in an elegiack dialogue on the death of Dido, or Elizabeth Dudley; nothe, the anagram of his name in the French language, with which Spenser appears to have been very conversant, signifying an illegitimate child. By the laws of anagram, where the same letter occurs twice in a name, one of them may be disregarded.

Note return to page 257 7See the Glosse on the first Eclogue, by E. K. probably Edward Kirke, who was of Caius and Gonville College, in Cambridge; and having taken the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1574, and of Master of Arts in 1578, was (as I learn from the Grace-book of that University), it may be presumed, one year younger than Spenser. “Rosalinde is also a feigned name, which, being well ordered, will bewray the verie name of his love and mistresse, whom by that name he coloureth.” The writer of Spenser's Life, published in 1758, with some probability, conjectures that the lady's name was Rose Linde; a family of that name, as appears from Fuller's Worthies, having been settled in Kent (where Rosalinde resided), in the time of King Henry the Sixth. Rosalinde's real name, however, may have been Elisa Horden, the aspiration being omitted, and Ordn serving in the place of Orden; a licence which the framer of such an enigmatical conceit would not scruple to take. “The precise in this practise,” says Camden, “strictly observing all the parts of the definition [of an anagram], are only bold with (h) either omitting it, or retaining it, for that it cannot challenge the right of a letter. But the licentious, somewhat licentiously, lest they should prejudice poetical libertie, will pardon themselves for doubling or rejecting a letter, if the sense fall aptly; and think it no injurie to use e for æ, v for w, s for z, and c for k, and contrariwise.” Remaines, 4to. 1605, p. 168. Thomas Horden, as well as Mr. Linde, was a gentleman of Kent, in the time of Henry the Sixth. The Glossarist's observation seems to denote a transposition of letters, which Rosa, or Rose Linde, does not require. “There is,” says Drummond of Hawthornden, “in the composition of an anagram, transposition; because, if any sense be in the name of letters not transposed, it is not so much an anagram as equivoque, as Anna Grame,—anagram: “&lblank; What needs an anagrame, “Since that her very name is Anna Grame.” If it should be said that to the construction of this anagram it is necessary that the lady's Christian name should be written with an s, instead of a z; Elisa, and not Eliza; the answer, without claiming the license granted by Camden, is, that such was Spenser's classical orthography. So, near the conclusion of The Tears of the Muses: “Most peereless prince, most peereless poetresse,.... “Divine Elisa &lblank;.” Again, in his Prothalamion: “Divine Elisaes glorious name may ring.” Her Majesty's usage, however, was different; for she wrote her name Elizabeth. Spenser's orthography was founded on classical authority.

Note return to page 258 8As we have Lobbin, for Robbin, or Robin; Willy, for Lilly; Rosalinde, for some unknown person (whether Rose Linde or Elisa Horden); Morel, for Elmor, or Elmer; and Algrind, for Grindal; so, in Colin Clout's Come Home Again, Amaryllis represents Alice, Countess of Derby, the first and last four letters of Amaryllis answering, in sound, to her Christian name, the intermediate letters being rejected; and this circumstance, it may be presumed, induced Spenser to distinguish her by that name; for, as she is represented as the wife of Amyntas, he would probably, but for this conceit, have called her Phillis, instead of applying that name to her sister, Elizabeth Lady Carey; the loves of Amyntas and Phillis having been recently celebrated by Watson, in an admired poem. In like manner, the fictitious name, Theana, which in Colin Clout represents Anne, Countess of Warwick, may have a reference to her Christian name. So, in the fourth Eclogue we have Bellibone, by metathesis, for Bonnibel: and, in The Faery Queen, Belphebe represents Queen Elizabeth; because Sir Walter Raleigh had called her Cynthia; Phebe, as well as Cynthia, being one of the names of Diana. So also, in the Prothalamion, 4to. 1596, written on the marriage of Lady Elizabeth and Lady Catharine Somerset, he has indulged himself in the same kind of conceit which dictated the various fanciful denominations above enumerated; and, in his description of these ladies, he has condescended thus to play on their surname: “For sure they did not seeme “To be begot of any earthly seede, “But rather angels, or of angels kinde; “Yet were they bred of somers heat, they say, “In sweetest season, when each flower and weede “The earth did fresh array.” Nor was this kind of paronomasy peculiar to Spenser. One of his patrons, and a very admired poet, Sir Edward Dyer, by a similar conceit, has mysteriously divulged his own name, near the conclusion of one of his poems, of which there are two ancient manuscript copies at Oxford; one in the Bodleian Library, the other in the Ashmolean Museum: “Yet is my woe not feignde “Wherein I sterve and pyne; “Who feeleth most, shall finde his least, “Comparing his with mine. “My song, if any aske “Who's grievous case is such, “Dy er thou let his name be knowne,— “His folly shewes to [too] much.” This poem is very corruptly printed among those ascribed erroneously to William Earl of Pembroke and Sir Benjamin Rudierd, in which volume the letter P, prefixed to several copies of verses, merely denotes that they were printed from a transcript in Lord Pembroke's hand-writing, not that they were his compositions. At that time, it was much the fashion to transcribe in a fair paper book, the most popular poetical productions of the day, while they yet continued in manuscript; and by frequent transcription they became very corrupt. To this common practice Drayton alludes, in the preface to his Polyolbion, 1612: “In publishing this essay of my poem, there is this great disadvantage against me, that it cometh out at this time, when verses are wholly deduc't to chambers, and nothing esteemed in this lunatique age, but what is kept in cabinets, and must only passe by transcription.” In like manner, in The Looking Glasse for London and England, written by Thomas Lodge and Robert Greene (mentioned below), the cruel and brutal son who treats his parents, Alcon and Samia, with neglect and contempt, and refuses them any succour in their utmost need, is called Radagon, by metathesis, from a dragon. And in Lodge's Fig for Momus, a collection of Epistles, Satires, &c. 4to. 1595, we find the poet himself introduced under the name of Golde [Lodge], and two of his contemporaries, Roydon and Deering, under the names of Dowroy and Ringde. So, in a Collection of Poems, written, at various times, between 1615 and 1635, a manuscript in my possession, in a Replie to Mr. Randoll's [Thomas Randolph's] Verses on the Losse of his Finger, we find that poet's name thus anagrammatized: “Muse, ere we part let wyttie Arnold know, “Haud pulchrum est monstrari digito.” How far the mystery of anagram was carried, may appear from one by Hugh Holland, on the initials of the two names of Edmund Bolton, which is much more enigmatical than any of Spenser's: “Mr. Hugh Holland to his learned friend Mr. E. B. the author, upon his Elements of Armorie: “&lblank; Here no need is of my sorry charmes “To boast it, though my braines Apollo warmes; “Where, like in Jove's, Minerva keeps a coile; “Yet I, a drone, shall but thy hony spoile, “That art the maister—BE of all the swarmes.” Commendatory Poem prefixed to Elements of Arm. 4to. 1610. The writer's conceit here would, perhaps, never have been discovered, but for the following marginal note, on the words— “Maister BE,” the last two letters being carefully distinguished by capitals: “E. B. [i. e. Edmund Bolton] per anagrammatismum vel metathesin.”

Note return to page 259 9As so much has been said in this section concerning anagrams, and “name-devices,” which are as old as the time of Lycophron, it is but justice to Spenser to advert to the opinions which very generally prevailed in his time on this subject, and particularly to quote the sentiments of the grave and judicious Camden on these playful conceits. After having explained the nature of anagram, he adds, “But some of the sower sort will say, it is nothing but troublous joy; and because they cannot attaine to it, condemne it, lest by commending it they should discommend themselves. Others, more milde, will grant it to be a daintie devise, and disport of wit, not without pleasure, if it be not wrested out of the name to the reproach of the person. And such will not deny, but that as good names may be ominous, so also good anagrammes, with a delightfull comfort and pleasant motion in honest mindes; in no point yielding to many vaine pleasures of the body. They will also afford it some commendation in respect of the difficultie (difficilia quæ pulchra), as also that it is a whetstone of patience to them that shall practise it [and also our antiquary might have added, to them that shall develope it]. For some have beene seene to bite their penne, scratch their head, bend their browes, bite their lips, beate the boord, teare the paper, when they were faire for somewhat, and caught nothing herein. If profound antiquity, or the inventour may commend an invention, this will not give place to many.” After various observations and examples, the same writer, in conclusion, adds, “But here it is time to stay; for some of the sowre sort begin to laugh at these, when as yet they have no better inlight in anagrammes, then wise Sieur Gaulard, who, when he heard a gentleman report that he was at supper, where they had not only good company and good cheare, but also savoury epigrammes, and fine anagrammes, he, returning home, rated and belowted his cooke, as an ignorant scullion, that never dressed or served up to him either epigrammes or anagrammes. And as for these sowre surlings, they are to be commended to Sieur Gaulard, and hee with them joyally to their cookes and kitchen stuffe.” Camden's Remaines, 4to. 1605.

Note return to page 260 1Ben Jonson has praised Selden, Donne, Sylvester, Breton, Chapman, Drayton, Broome, &c. Donne has praised Jonson. Sir John Davys has praised Spenser, Chapman, Daniel. Chapman has encomiastick verses on Jonson, Fletcher, Beaumont. Davison has most extravagantly praised Daniel, placing him above Spenser. Beaumont has eulogized Ben Jonson. Brown and Withers have encomiastick verses on Drayton. Abraham Fleming has commended Whetstone. We have an eulogy, by Nashe, on Greene, Peele, Roydon, and Acheley; by Peele, on Spenser, Wilson, Marlowe, Greene, and Whetstone; by Harrington, on Constable, Daniel, Bustard, Davys, and Turberville; by Drayton, on Drummond, Lord Sterling, and many others; by Lodge, on Lilly, Nashe, Sylvester, Daniel, and Drayton; by Davies, of Hereford, on Roydon, Daniel, Shakspeare, Fletcher, &c.; and by Fitz Geoffrey, on Spenser, Sidney, Daniel, and Drayton. Drayton has commended Middleton, Chapman, Sir John Beaumont, and others.

Note return to page 261 2A paper of verses, in which Spenser's deep conceit is praised, has been attributed to Shakspeare, but erroneously; for it was written by Richard Barnefield. See Shakspeare's Poems, vol. xx.

Note return to page 262 3This was written several years before the late edition of Spenser's Works, by the Rev. Mr. Todd, had appeared.

Note return to page 263 4Birch's Memoirs of Queen Elizabeth, i. 53.

Note return to page 264 5It is not easy to ascertain the precise time, in 1594, when this poem was written. That it was written after April, 1594, is certain, for the reason given in the next page of text. The lines relative to the death of Lord Derby,— “But since I said he is, he quite is gone,” &c. would lead us to suppose it written recently after that event. Yet the verses, in which his widow is said to be freed from the yoke of Cupid, since which she dreads to engage in a second marriage, seems to imply that some months had elapsed since she lost her husband. Daniel's Cleopatra, a tragedy, was published in 1594; but I doubt whether it had reached Spenser's hands, when he composed his eulogy on that poet. If he had known that Daniel had already attempted “tragick plaints and passionate mischance,” he scarcely would have contented himself with saying that this poet was likely to excel in some performance of that kind. Unluckily there is no entry of the poem in question in the Stationers' register, which might throw some light on this inquiry. I am, therefore, only able to state the doubts on each side.

Note return to page 265 6The allusion to Daniel's Sonnets, which did not appear till 1592, furnishes another proof of this errour, and the allusion to Ralegh's disgrace a fourth.

Note return to page 266 7As it has become a fashion for hypercriticks, when they quote the works of others, to re-write them, to guard against any such overweening and crotchet correction, I think it proper to say, that this word is here used deliberately, and that I think now more elegant than then in this place.

Note return to page 267 8The writer of the Life of Spenser, prefixed to Church's edition, places the death of this nobleman erroneously in 1595, and appears to have led Mr. Warton into the same errour. See his Milton, p. 111, second edition.

Note return to page 268 9We have here another instance of Spenser copying himself. In his eleventh Eclogue we find: “Sing now, ye shepheard's daughters, sing no mo “The song that Colin made you in her praise, “But into weeping turn your wanton layes.”

Note return to page 269 1Of this uncommon formula we have an example in Holy Writ, 1 Kings, xviii. 7: “And as Obadiah was in the way, behold, Elijah met him: and he knew him, and fell on his face, and said, Art thou that my lord Elijah?”

Note return to page 270 2In an arbour of eglantine or sweet-briar. Arbours formed of this sweet-scented shrub were then common. See Lilly's Euphues and his England, signat. H 4, (b.) 4to. 1580: “Fidus, calling these gentlemen up, brought them into his garden, wher under a sweet arbour of eglantine, the birds recording their sweet notes, he also strained his olde pipe,” &c. Again, in A briefe and pleasant Discourse of Duties in Mariage, called The Flower of Friendshippe, by Edmond Tylney, 8vo. 1568: “&lblank; at whose returne we went into the garden, a place marvellous delectable, wherein was a passing faire arbour, at the entrance whereof, on eche side, sprong up two pleasaunt trees, whose greene leaves much delighted our eyes, and were supported with statelye pillers, curiously painted with divers devises. All the whole arbour above over our heades, and on eche side, was powdred with sundrie flowers, and wreathed above with the sweete bryer or eglantine, between the braunches whereof the chereful sunne layde in his beames here and there; so that the heate did not molest us, neyther did the sunne want, to cheere us. What shall I say? it might be called a terrestriall paradise.” Spenser's own authority, however, will most decisively prove that by the words, “In thy sweet eglantine,” such an arbour was intended to be described. See the Faery Queen, b. xi. c. 5, st. 29: “And over him, art, stryving to compare “With nature, did an arbour greene dispred, “Framed of wanton yvie, flouring fayre, “Through which the fragrant eglantine did spred “His prickling armes, entrayld with roses red, “Which daintie odours round about them threw; “And all within with flowres was garnished, “That, when mild Zephyrus amongst them blew, “Did breathe out beauteous smels, and painted colors shew.” This description, we see, was not drawn from the stores of Spenser's imagination, as has been supposed: he merely described an elegant arbour of his own time.

Note return to page 271 3Mr. Gorge had estates in Devonshire, Cornwall, and Middlesex: but Meriflure, which does not occur as the designation of any land in the inquisition taken after his death, is not the name of any place in those counties, or in any other county in England, and was unquestionably a fictitious denomination invented for the occasion. We have seen Spenser so often indulging himself in fanciful denominations, that this combination will not seem more strange than many others which have been noticed. Meriflure, I conceive, was formed from the French words rime (meri), and fleur (flure), both anagrammatized; and thus considered, the poet's exhortation to his friend, “&lblank; pursue that brave conceipt, “In thy sweet eglantine of Meriflure,” means nothing more than—‘Complete that fine poetick work which you have begun, in thy arbour, embellished not only with eglantine or sweet-briar (the usual ornament of bowers, see p. 229, n. 2), but also with the choicest flowers of verse, or, in other words, consecrated to poesy:’ for Spenser, following his master, Ariosto, generally, if not always, uses rime as synonymous to verse. So, in his Eclogue for October: “Thou know'st not, Percie, how the rime should rage;” and in that for November: “Up, griezlie ghostes, and up, my rufull rime!” Again, in The Tears of the Muses: “Then fittest are those ragged rimes for me.” In French, rime had the same meaning: and in that language he found fleur d'age, signifying, as in the equivalent expression in our own, the flower or prime of a man's age; fleur de farine, the finest meal; and fleur d'huyle, the first and richest droppings of the olive or grape before they are pressed. So, in English, in his own time (1568), a popular book was published by Edmond Tilney, afterwards Master of the Revels, under the title of the Flower of Friendship; and about the same time appeared The Flower of the Ten Commandements. While Spenser was a student at Cambridge, Gascoigne published a collection of his poems, under the title of “A hundreth sundry Flowers,” &c. He might also in the formation of this word have had in view the well-known collection of Greek Epigrams, entitled &grA;&grN;&grQ;&grO;&grL;&grO;&grG;&grI;&grA;, and the Latin Flores Poetarum; in imitation of which works, a collection of miscellaneous poetry by different authors appeared a few years after Colin Clout, under the title of “Belvidere, or the Garden of the Muses,” in the preface to which the editor says, “that every man may be fully satisfied, I have set down both how, whence and where these flowers had their first springing, till they were drawn together into the Muses' garden.” The flowers here spoken of were the flowers of verse, and therefore, by an easy fiction, these poetick effusions may have been supposed to have been poured forth in arbours of a similar construction to that which is here called Meriflure. In another poem he makes mention of the bowers devoted to the Muses, such as that which he has here appropriated to his friend: “&lblank; arbours sweet, in which the shepheard swaines “Were wont so oft their pastorals to sing.” Lydgate has “the flower of knighthood,” and “the flower of worthinesse;” and Spenser himself, “the flower of chivalrie,” and the flowers of courtesie;” and in this very poem he calls Ferdinando Earl of Derby, under the name of Amyntas, “the flower of shepheards.” In his Teares of the Muses, we find a similar formula still more resembling the latent meaning couched under the invented word before us: “But I, that in true tragedies am skil'd, “The flowre of wit, finde nought to busie me!” The combination of ideas, therefore, which gave rise to the word Meriflure, we see, was perfectly congenial to his general train of thought and phraseology elsewhere. With respect to the former part of this fictitious denomination, meri, or rime anagrammatized, it may be observed, that Fontenelle, in like manner, with the variation of only one letter, about a century afterwards published a satirical history of Rome and Geneve, under the anagram of Mero and Enegu. The anagram of Rome, a word little different from that under our consideration, was, I believe, not unknown to Spenser: Cur varios tum diu remoratur Roma clientes? Fortè, quod inverso nomine Roma mora est. I may add that the known adumbration of Bishop Elmor (or Aylmer) under the name of Morel, gives countenance to the metathesis now suggested, which in the word rime is effected by the same process, namely, by making the first and second syllables of each word change places; and a similar compounded name in an ancient romance, Blanchefleur, was doubtless familiar to Spenser's ear. Nor was the foreign termination of the fictitious name which he has chosen to introduce here (perhaps chiefly for the sake of the corresponding rhyme), wholly unknown to his countrymen; for, for many centuries previous to the dissolution of religious houses in the time of Henry the Eighth, subsisted, in Cardiganshire, the Abbey of Strutflure, or Strutflure (strata florida), an abbey of Cestercian monks. See Dugdale's Monasticon, iii. 893.

Note return to page 272 4“Layes” are songs. It is observable that the same kind of praise is given a few years afterwards to Shakspeare, who unaccountably is represented by his eulogist as a mere penner of love-verses, when he had produced at least fifteen of his incomparable plays: “Who loves Adonis' love, or Lucrece' rape, “His sweeter verse contains heart-throbbing strife, “Could but a graver subject him content, “Without love's foolish lazy languishment.” Return from Parnassus, 4to. 1606; but written about the end of the year 1602.

Note return to page 273 5Surely there is here some errour of the press. I cannot but think the poet wrote “O dearest dread.” So, in the conclusion of his address to the same personage, prefixed to the Faery Queen: “The which to heare vouchsafe, O dearest dread, awhile.” The same form of expression is found also in book ii. c. 2, st. 30; and book iv. c. 8, st. 17. So also, in his Hymn of Beautie: “And you faire Venus' dearling, my dear dread.” Sir Henry Sidney begins one of his letters to Queen Elizabeth thus—“Most feared and beloved,” which is precisely Spenser's “dearest dread.” So also, Sir Richard Gresham's Petition to King Henry VIII. (1535), Bib. Cotton. Cleop. E IV. fol. 122, “My most dradd, beloved and naturall sov'aigne.” “O dreaded dread,” has no meaning.

Note return to page 274 6“Thomas Churchyard (says Oldys in his manuscript notes on Winstanley's Lives of the Poets) was born about the year 1520; at the age of seventeen (1537) came to King Henry's court; had served in the wars abroad, and was subject at home, under eight crowned heads: had also been in the service of two or three of the noblest families in England: had dedicated books to about twenty great personages of fortune and distinction: yet with his fighting and writing, loss of much blood and time in camps and courts, in a fearful and fruitless attendance and dependance upon the ungrateful great, for above sixty-seven years, he never could get more than a very scanty pension from Queen Elizabeth, so scanty that upon the death of Dr. John Underhill, Bishop of Oxford, one of his best friends [1589], he had no better prospect of sustaining himself to the end of his natural course, than [by] exposing again, in 1592, his aged and scarified limbs to the hardships of war in foreign service; yet did struggle on to salute King James with a Congratulation upon his entrance, printed 4to. 1604. He was a most grateful man in receiving kindnesses, and in celebrating the merits of the dead.” Oldys, in the foregoing statement, seems to have thought that Churchyard had obtained a pension before 1589; but he was mistaken. See note 8. A copious account of Churchyard's Works may be found in Herbert's edition of Ames's Typ. Antiq. vol. iii. p. 1806. His poem, entitled The Mirrour and Manners of Men, which was published in 1594, was written fifty years before; hence it appears that he was an author so early as 1544, the 36th year of Henry VIII. His last publication appeared in 1604, and was addressed to King James, under the title of A blessed Balme to Search and Salve Sedition; to which was added “A Pean Triumphal upon the King's Publick Entry,” &c. He died in the same year, and was buried in the church of St. Margaret, Westminster. See Weaver's Fun. Mon. p. 497. It appears that Nashe, in some pamphlet, now unknown, had reflected upon Churchyard; for in his Apologie of Pierce Pennilesse, 4to. 1593, (signat. H 4. b), he complains that Gabriel Harvey had reproached him with crying this poet mercy. “This,” he says, “could not be done but with an intent to stir him up to write against Churchyard afresh, which nothing under heaven should draw him to do.” “I love you” (adds Nashe, addressing Churchyard,) “unfainedly, and admire your aged Muse, that may well be grandmother to our grand eloquentest poet, at this present. Sanctum et venerabile vetus omne poema. “Shore's wife [inserted in The Mirrour for Magistrates] is yong, though you be stept in yeares: in her shall you live when you are dead.” Churchyard, in return, speaks highly of Nashe, in his New Years Gift to Queen Elizabeth, 1593.

Note return to page 275 7Mr. Warton has reprinted this poem entire in the third volume of his Hist. of Eng. Poet. p. 57, with the following high eulogy: “From the same collection, [Churchyard's Challenge,] the following is perhaps the first example in our language of the pure and unmixed pastoral; and in the erotick species, for ease of numbers, elegance of rural allusion, and simplicity of imagery, excels every thing of this kind in Spencer, who is erroneously ranked as our earliest English Bucolick.”

Note return to page 276 8“Pat. 35 Eliz. p. 4. Jan. 27. Elizabeth by the Grace of God &c. To All Men to whom &c. Greeting.—Knowe Ye that Wee for certen good Causes and Consideracons us hereunto specially moving, Of our Grace especiall, certen Knowledge, and meere Mocon, Have Gyven and Graunted and by these &pab;sentes for us our Heyres and Successors Doe Gyve and Graunte to our, Welbeloved Svante Thomas Churchard Gent A certen A&nbar;uytye or Pencon of Eighteene Pence of good and lawfull Money of England by the Day; To have hold receave and enjoy the said Penc&obar;n of Eighteene Pence of lawfull Money of England by the Day unto the sayde Thomas Churchard and his Assignes during his naturall Lyfe, from the Feaste of Saynte Michaell last past before the Date hereof, of the Treasure of us our Heyres and Successors at the Receyte of the Exchequer at Westmr of us our Heyres and Successors by the Hands of the Treasorer and Chamberlaynes of us our Heyres and Successors there for the Tyme being, at four usuall Feastes or Tearmes of the Yeere by even Porcons yerely to be payde Although ex&pab;sse mencon &c. In Witnes whereof &c. Wytnes our selfe at Westmr. the xxvijth Day of January [1592–3]. &pab; Breve de Privato Sigillo, &c.

Note return to page 277 1His pension, we have seen, was to commence from Michaelmas, 1592; yet near the close of the following year, he had received nothing, as appears from a letter in the Lambeth Library, written by Mr. A. Standon to Antony Bacon, and dated “Wyndsore, the xvijth of November, 1593,” from which I transcribed the following postscript: “I sende you, Sr. here, fower of Churchyard's chyldren whiche he hatche in collor [choler], after he could not obtaine of one a thinge her Matie. had granted him; which verses came to her handes. “Madame, “You bid your Tresorer on a tyme “To gyve me reason for my ryme; “But synce that tyme and that season “He gave me nether ryme nor reason.” MS. Lamb. 649, p. 267. These lines furnish one of many proofs of what I have had frequent occasion to observe, that all the traditional stories concerning our English poets are to be examined with the greatest caution, being frequently either wholly unfounded, or blended with gross fiction; for on the fact above-mentioned, a circumstantial tale respecting Spenser and Lord Burghley has been constructed; which first appeared in the folio edition of that poet's works in 1579, and has been repeated a hundred times since, though totally void of truth. It is, however, just as well founded as another tale, which has been as often told:—that his first introduction to Sir Philip Sidney was, by presenting him with a canto of his Faery Queen, with which Sidney was so delighted, that he ordered his steward to give the unknown author fifty pounds: and having increased his bounty as he read on, urged him to make haste, otherwise he should be in danger of giving away his whole estate. Were not this tale disproved by other circumstances, the verses subscribed with the initials W. L. at the end of the Faery Queen alone would shew that it also is a mere fiction; for it appears from them that it was on the suggestion of Sidney, Spenser undertook that poem; and he had himself dedicated his Shepheard's Calendar to Sidney, and by that means became acquainted with him in or before 1578.

Note return to page 278 2This title, I believe, has not been understood. Ivy Church appears to have been one of the seats in Wales belonging to Henry Earl of Pembroke, husband to this Countess. See the next note.

Note return to page 279 3These few particulars concerning Abraham Fraunce I have principally collected from his own works, and from a letter in the Museum, written by Henry Earl of Pembroke, Lord President of the Council in the Marches of Wales, to the Lord Treasurer Burghley, dated at Ivy Church, the xxvth of August, 1590. After having named certain persons as proper to fill vacant offices in the Court of the Council in the Marches of Wales, he proceeds thus: —“Yet least the indifferency I use may argue me to conceave an equality in them whose names I deliver, I have to this my servaunt [Massenger] imparted mine opinion of every one. Yf it fall out that I preferre them who are by blood, kindred, alliance, or in other respectes, nearest my selfe, yet I assure your lp that my comendation proceeds of a sufficientie in them, not of partial affection in me...... “Since the death of Mr Amias, her Mats Sollicitor at the Counsaill in the Marches, no man is appointed to that service. There is in that court Mr Abraham Ffraunce, a pleader at the barre. He was bred by my brother Sir Phillip Sidney long in Cambridge; continued afterwards in Graies Inne, untill he was called to the barre. I conceave him in eche respect a man sufficient for that service. Yf it will therefore please your Ip at my hartie request to comend him to her Matie, I shall thinke my selfe pleasured therein.” MS. Harl. 6995, article 35. This office, which doubtless Fraunce obtained on suche a recommendation, had been held by Thomas Phaer, Esq. the well-known translator of Virgil, who died in 1563.

Note return to page 280 4See Peck's Desid. Curios. vol. i. p. 52, 4to. How small a provision ten pounds a year (which may be estimated as equal to forty pounds a year now) was then considered, may appear from a passage in Churchyard's Dedication to King James, prefixed to his Blessed Balme, 4to. 1604, in which he speaks of the pension granted to him by Queen Elizabeth, which was, we have seen, 27l. 7s. 6d. per ann. (equal perhaps to 100l. a year now) as a very poor stipend. “The good queen gave me (says he) a poore pension for this service, and so calling to mind in four princes' times I have given a great push for preferment, yet I was never advanced; I bethought me of the fifth king, since the other four left me only to a poor pension.”

Note return to page 281 5It should seem from the following manuscript note by Oldys in his copy of Langbaine's Account of the Dramatick Poets, that a Latin treatise on logick by Fraunce is yet in existence: “The thin MS. in folio, an original written and adorned by A. Fraunce and dedicated to his Mecænas, Sir P. Sidney, in two parts; the one containing his Discourse upon logick, in Latin prose, about twenty-two pages; the other a collection of heroick symbols (in forty leaves) of princes and other illustrious persons of Italy, France, and Spain, then of the greatest fame in Europe; having their emblems all curiously drawn with his own pen, and Latin verses written under them, with explanations in prose. Bound in a white vellum cover adorned with gold, containing a landscape on one side of Æneas's voyage in Virgil, lib. 4, tollite me, Teucri, for the motto, and on the other side, eight Latin verses upon Vive, Vale. In Dr. Rawlinson's possession, 30th of April, 1750.” As Dr. Rawlinson bequeathed his MSS. to the Bodleian Library, this might have been expected to be found among them; but the Rev. Mr. Price, after a careful search, could not discover it in that very valuable repository. It is, therefore, probably, in some private hands.

Note return to page 282 6“The Lawyers Logike, exemplifying the præcepts of logike by the practise of the common lawe,” 4to. 1588, dedicated to Henry Earl of Pembroke, in fourteen syllable verse.

Note return to page 283 7The full title of this very scarce book is—“The Arcadian Rhetorike, or the præcepts of rhetorike made plaine by examples, Greeke, Latin, Englishe, Italian, French, Spanish, out of Homers Ilias and Odissea; Virgil's Æglogs, Georgikes, and Æneis; Sir Philip Sidnie's Arcadia, Songs and Sonets; Torquato Tassoes Geoffredo, Aminta, Torrismondo; Salust his Judith and both his Semaines; Boscan and Garcilassoes Sonnets and Æglogs.” It is dedicated “to the right excellent and most honourable ladie, the ladie Marie Countess of Pembroke,” in six Macaronick verses. The 24th chapter of the first book of this tract is “of Paranomasia.”

Note return to page 284 8The original and true name is Gorge. Gorges was merely a corruption, arising from the common English habit of annexing the letter S at the end of surnames.

Note return to page 285 1Dedication to Daphnaida, 4to. 1596.

Note return to page 286 2The story of Alcyone, the wife of Ceyx, had been familiarized to the English reader; for in 1569 was published “The tragicall and lamentable hystorie of two faithfull mates, Ceyx kynge of Trachyne and Alcyone his wife &c. drawne into English meeter. By William Hubbard.” It is also found in Golding's translation of the eleventh book of Ovid's Metamorphosis.

Note return to page 287 3In 1588, when England was threatened with an invasion by Spain, Arthur Gorges, together with Ralegh, Sir Charles Blount, Edward Vere Earl of Oxford, and others, served as volunteers on board the English fleet (Camden, Eliz. ii. 576); and he afterwards accompanied his kinsman, Sir Walter Ralegh, in Essex's great expedition against the islands Azores, where he was wounded. His wife, Douglas Howard, who was daughter to Henry Howard, Esq. afterwards Viscount Bindon, was baptized January 29, 1571–2 (Lysons's Environs of London, iii. 499), and died June 13, 1590 [Esc. Amb. Gorges, 42 Eliz. n. 139], probably not very long after her marriage, leaving one daughter, Ambrosia, who is also celebrated by Spenser (Daphnaida, signat. I.), and who died 10th of October, 1600 [Esc. ut supra]. Mr. Gorges must have married his second wife in or before September, 1597; for his son William was baptized at Chelsea, May 30, 1599 (Lysons, ii. 122); and he had, by the same lady, an elder son, Arthur, who succeeded to his estate on his death (Esc. 2 Car. p. 3, n. 169). He had four other sons; Tymoleon, baptized in the same parish, October 1, 1600; Egremon, Carew, and Henry (Esc. ut supra). He represented the county of Dorset, in the parliament that met in November, 1592, and was knighted, by Queen Elizabeth, in 1597. In right of his first wife, Mr. Gorges acquired an estate in Dorsetshire, which, on the death of his daughter Ambrosia, devolved on her maternal uncle, Thomas Viscount Bindon (Esc. 42 Eliz. n. 139). In right of his second lady, he became possessed of the manor house of Chelsea, which had belonged to Sir Thomas More. In the Epistle Dedicatory to Lucy Countess of Bedford, prefixed to his translation of Lucan, sexto, 1614, his son Carew, who was then a school-boy, speaks thus of his father's works: “I remember this sentence in my Pueriles, Voluntas, ubi desunt vires, est laudanda; where power is wanting, the good wyll is to be accepted: which, I presume, will be my warrant in presenting your ladyship with this poem, which by chance I did see in my father's study, amongst many others of his manuscripts: and because it lay idly there, I desired him to give it to me.” With this request, he tells us, his father complied. It is strange that in this translation the author should have employed the verse of eight syllables, a measure generally appropriated to the lighter kinds of poetry, and extremely unsuitable to the original. His relationship and intimacy with Ralegh procured a copy of commendatory verses prefixed to the translation of Lucan, and signed W. R., which have escaped the notice of his biographers. Puttenham, in his Arte of Poesie, 4to. 1589, p. 190, has quoted two lines from a poem, “by Maister Gorge,” which do not do him much credit. The lines, however, may serve to ascertain the author of the piece, if it be yet in being, and published anonymously. I have never met with any other poetical production of Arthur Gorges, either in print or manuscript, except those here mentioned. In 1611, he published “A transcript and explanation of his Majesty's Letters Patent for creating an Office called Publick Registers of general Commerce.” In 1619, he gave the world a translation of Bacon's Sapientia Veterum, and in the same year a translation of Bacon's Essays; both into French. He died at Chelsea, September 28, 1625 (Esc. ut supra), and was buried there, on the 10th of October (Lysons, ii. 122). His eldest son, Sir Arthur Gorges, was also a poet. See the Collection of Verses on the Death of Lord Hastings, 8vo. 1650.

Note return to page 288 4Verses, by Peele, are prefixed to Watson's Sonnets, published in 1581.

Note return to page 289 5The title of Peele's pastoral, which is extremely scarce, is “An Eclogue Gratulatorie, entituled to the right honorable and renowmed Shepheard of Albion's Arcadia, Robert Earle of Essex and Ewe for his welcome into England from Portugall,” 4to. 1589.

Note return to page 290 6Palin is used as the abbreviation of Palinode, by Peele, in his Eclogue Gratulatorie, &c. 4to. 1589: “Twit me with boldnes, Palin, as thou wilt,” &c. “In like manner, Spenser uses Hobbin for Hobbinol.

Note return to page 291 7This appears from the MS. register of Philip Henslowe. See the History of the English Stage, vol. iii.

Note return to page 292 8The practice of thus denominating authors by names taken from their works, was not uncommon in that age. Thus Henry Chettle, in a miscellaneous piece, consisting of prose and verse, entitled England's Mourning Garment, &c. 4to. 1603, shadows Marlowe the poet under the name of Musæus; because he had translated the poem of Hero and Leander, attributed to Musæus: and Robert Greene, under the name of Musidore, doubtless from his having been the author of Mucedorus, a play, which has been absurdly attributed to Shakspeare.

Note return to page 293 1This religious play represents the abominations and reformation of the Ninevites; and the prophet Hosea, and Jonah, are two of the Dramatis Personæ; the latter of whom is cast out of the whale's belly on the stage.

Note return to page 294 2Scillea's Metamorphosis, 4to. 1589; Euphues Golden Legacie, 4to. 1590; Phillis honoured with pastoral sonnets, elegies, and amorous delights, the Life and Death of William Longbeard, 4to. 1593, &c. In the middle of the year 1594, Lodge published a piece of “more skill,” entitled The Wounds of Civil Warre, or the true Historie of Marius and Sylla, a tragedy; but I doubt whether it had reached Spenser's hands, when these verses were written.

Note return to page 295 3This very rare piece is entitled A Fig for Momus, containing pleasant Varietie, included in Satyres, Eclogues, and Epistles, by T. L. of Lincolnes Inne, Gent. It was entered in the Stationers' register, April 2, 1595. Mr. Warton, in the unpublished fragment of the fourth volume of his History of English Poetry, p. 81, seems to doubt whether Lodge ever published any satires. The above-mentioned miscellany, it appears, had not fallen into his hands.

Note return to page 296 4There is a copy of this poem in the library of Emmanuel College, in Cambridge; and another, which had belonged to the late Dr. Farmer, is now in the valuable collection of Richard Heber, Esq. of Brazen-nose College, Oxford, to whom I am indebted for the following specimen of it: “Phillis, honoured with Pastorall Sonnets, Elegies, and Amorous Delights. Whereunto is annexed the tragicall Complaynt of Elstred,” 4to. 1593. I have never seen or heard of more than two copies of this collection of poems. The Induction is as follows: THE INDUCTION. “I that, obscur'd, have fled the sceane of fame* [Subnote: *The author had, in the preceding year, gone on a voyage with the celebrated navigator Cavendish.] , “Intitling my conceits to nought but care, “I that have liv'd a Phœnix in love's flame, “And felt that death I never would declare,   “Now mount the theater of this our age,   “To plead my faith and Cupid's cursed rage “Oh you high sp'rited paragons of witte† [Subnote: †Spenser's Daniel, &c.] “That flye to fame beyond our earthly pitch, “Whose sence is sound, whose words are feat and fitte, “Able to make the coyest eare to itch,   “Shroud with your mighty wings that mount so well,   “These little loves new crept from out the shell. “And thou, the true Octavia‡ [Subnote: ‡Mary Countess of Pembroke (as I conceive), a patroness of poets, and sister of Sir Philip Sidney; as Octavia was the sister of Augustus, and patroness of Virgil.] of our time, “Under whose worth beauty was never matched, “The genius of my Muse and ragged rime, “Smile on these little loves but lately hatched,   “Who from the wrastling waves have made retreate,   “To pleade for life before thy judgement seate. “And tho' the fore-bred brothers§ [Subnote: §Doubtless Thomas Watson and Abraham Fraunce. The former, in 1585, had sung the Complaints or Lamentations of Amyntas for the Death of Phillis; and hence Lodge calls Watson's verses—former loves; the collection of poems to which this is the introduction, being also in honour of Phillis. Abraham Fraunce, in 1587, had published a poetical translation of Watson's poem, under the title of The Lamentation of Amyntas for the Death of Phillis; of which the only copy that I have seen is in the Bodleian Library. Watson was dead before 1592. His very rare poem, in Latin hexameters, entitled Amyntas Thomae Watsoni Londinensis, I. V. Studiosi, consists of eleven parts, each entitled Querela (Prima, Secunda, &c.), and the last ends with the death of Amyntas. Spenser also has eulogized these fore-bred brothers in his Faery Queene, b. iii. c. 6, st. 45: “&lblank; Sad Amaranthus made a flower but late, “Sad Amaranthus, in whose purple gore “Me seemes I see Amintas' wretched fate, “To whom sweet poets' verse hath given endless date.” In a note on this passage, in the last edition, the learned editor concurs with Mr. Upton in supposing Sir Philip Sidney to be the person meant under the name of Amintas; but, unquestionably, that was not the case: and Mr. Church was equally mistaken in supposing that by Amyntas was here meant Thomas Watson, the author of the poem already mentioned; for though Spenser frequently shadowed some of the contemporary poets under the titles of their productions, or the names mentioned in them, that manifestly was not his meaning here; the Amintas in these lines being certainly the poetical and imaginary person who is supposed to have died for the love of Phillis; that Amintas, to whom “the verse” of those sweet poets [Watson and Fraunce] (for the word is not the genitive case singular, but plural), had given never-ending celebrity. The last line,—“To whom,” &c. compared with Lodge's verses in honour of the same persons, and with their respective poetical productions in 1585 and 1587 proves decisively that this is the true interpretation of this controverted passage.] they have had, “Who in their swan-like songs Amintas wept, “For all their sweet-thought sighes had fortune bad, “And twice obscur'd in Cinthia's circle slept,   “Yet these, I hope, under your kind aspéct,   “Most worthy lady, shall escape neglect. “And if these infants of mine artlesse braine “(Not by theyr worth, but by thy worthinesse) “A meane good liking of the learned gaine, “My Muse enfranchis'd from forgetfulnesse   “Shall hatch such breede in honour of thy name   “As moderne poets shall admire the same. “As moderne poets shall admire the same; “I meane not you, you never-matched men “Who brought the chaos of our tongue in frame “Through these Herculean labours of your pen:   “I meane the meane, I meane no men divine,   “But such whose feathers are but waxt like mine. “Go weeping truce-men in your sighing weedes, “Under a great Mecænas I have past [plas't] you; “If so you come where learned Colin* [Subnote: *Spenser.] feedes “His lovely flocke, packe thence, and quickly haste you:   “You are but mistes before so bright a sunne,   “Who hath the palme for deepe invention wonne. “Kisse Delia's hand, for her sweet prophet's† [Subnote: †Daniel.] sake, “Whose not affected, but well couched, teares “Have power, have worth, a marble mind to shake “Whose fame no iron age or time out-weares;   “Then lay you down in Phillis' lap, and sleepe,   “Untill she weeping read, and reading weepe.

Note return to page 297 4“Yet he himself may rewed be more right, “That sung so long untill quite hoarse he grew.” Spenser himself may, perhaps, supply the best comment on these lines. See his tenth Eclogue: “Cuddy. Pierce, I have piped earst so long with paine “That all mine oaten reedes bene rent and wore; “And my poore Muse hath spent her spared store, “Yet little good hath got and much less gaine.” Cuddy, or Cuthbert, was meant to designate a poet of that name, and a friend of Spenser's. See Three proper, &c. Letters, 4to. 1580, p. 40. Indeed, from a sonnet of Bishop Hall, yet preserved in manuscript, it should seem that all the interlocutors, introduced by Spenser in his Shepheard's Calendar, were not imaginary persons, but his own poetical contemporaries: “Not all the shepheards in his Calendar, “Though learned shepheards they, and seen in song &lblank;.” The same observation has been made by the Rev. Mr. Todd, in his late edition of Spenser, who also coincides with me in supposing Corydon to have meant Abraham Fraunce. But the present and preceding section were written some years before Mr. Todd's edition of Spenser appeared, and read by my friend Mr. Bindley.

Note return to page 298 4See also Faery Queen, book v. c. 8, st. 47.

Note return to page 299 5My friend Mr. Todd, in his valuable edition of Spenser, has also entered into an examination of Colin Clouts Come Home Again, with a view to ascertain, as far as conjecture can assist us, who the persons were who were understood by the poet under the feigned names which he has introduced. In several instances he coincides with Mr. Malone, but in others they differ. Palin he supposes to have been Thomas Chaloner; Alcon, Thomas Watson; Old Palemon, Thomas Churchyard; and Harpalus, Barnaby Googe. With regard to Palemon, I am inclined to think that Mr. Todd was in the right. If indeed it could be proved that Churchyard was the author of that ballad which is preserved along with Surrey's poems, “Phillida was a fair maid,” there could be little doubt that he was designated by Harpalus. But I know not upon what authority a composition of so much merit has been ascribed to him; it is certainly very different from his usual strain. I should think that he was commemorated under the name of Palemon, because he seems himself to have alluded to a line in that part of the poem: “That sung so long until quite hoarse he grew.” In Churchyard's Cherishing, 1596, he describes the Court as being “The platform where all poets thrive, “Save one whose voice is hoarse they say.” But the main object of our present inquiry, to which the other questions which these lines have suggested are comparatively unimportant, is, whether Shakspeare is pointed out under the name of Aetion. Mr. Todd applies it to Drayton. But there is nothing heroical in that poet's name; nor are “high thoughts” the distinguishing excellence of his poetry; while, on the other hand, Mr. Malone has, I think, sufficiently established the fondness of our ancestors for such a play of words as Shake-spear would furnish. But the reader has the evidence already before him, and I shall not detain him longer by any observations of my own. Boswell.

Note return to page 300 6William Alabaster was born in Suffolk, about the year 1567. He was educated at Trinity College, in Cambridge, where he took the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1587, and that of Master of Arts in 1591; and in 1592 he was incorporated into the University of Oxford. “He was,” says Wood, Ath. Oxon. vol. i. Fast. 144, “the rarest poet and Grecian that any one age or nation produced.” About two years after this poem was written, he accompanied Lord Essex, as one of his chaplains, in the expedition against Cadiz. After his return from that expedition, he changed his religion for that of Rome, and published, in his justification, his Seven Motives, to which two answers appeared. Afterwards, being disgusted with his new friends, he returned to the church of England, became a Prebendary of St. Paul's, Rector of Thorfield, in Hertfordshire, and in 1614, Doctor of Divinity. He died in April, 1640. His works, beside those already mentioned, are, Apparatus in Revelationem Jesu Christi, 4to. 1607; Spiraculum Tubarum, n. d. Ecce Sponsus Venit, 4to. 1633; Lexicon Pentaglotton, fol. 1637. His Roxana, he tells us himself, was the work of only a fortnight. Of this distinguished scholar and poet there is an admirable print, by Payne, which was well copied a few years ago.

Note return to page 301 7“A New Year's Gift to my Saviour. “Ho! God be here. Is Christ, my Lord, at leisure? “Blessed St. Peter, to my King present “This Alabaster box which I have sent; “And if he ask how it may do him pleasure, “Tell him I hear that he hath endless treasure “But hath not vessels half sufficient, “And in this box are many moe content, “Wherein of grace he may bestow large measure: “Within my spirit his knowledge he may place, “Light in my mind, within my will his grace: “Merit in memory, love in my hart: “This if he doe, I hope by seeing it “Ten thousand may themselves likewise impart.” The transcriber of this sonnet has written, in the third line, “An Alablaster box;” a corruption so common that Sir Robert Cecil, in one of his letters, thus writes the word. See Winwood's Memor. ii. 147. “Upon the Ensigns of our Crucified Saviour. “O sweet and bitter monument of pain! “(Bitter to Christ, who all the pain endured, “But sweet to me whose life his death secured,) “How shall I full-express such loss, such gain. “My tongue shall be my pen; mine eyes shall rain “Tears for the ink; the Cross where I was cured “Shall be my book; where having all abjured, “And calling heaven to record, in that place [plain] “Thus will I plainly write—no sin like mine. “When I have done, do thou, Jesu divine, “Take up the last sponge of thy passion “And blot that forth. Then be thy Spirit the quill, “Thy blood the ink, and with compassion “Write thus upon my soul—thy Jesu still.” The piety of these sonnets is more obvious than the poetry; yet Donne, and those in that age who admired Donne, doubtless thought them excellent. I have preserved them as the only English specimens of Alabaster's writing that I have been able to discover. In the first of these sonnets, it is manifest, from its structure, that a line has been omitted, by the negligence of the transcriber, which rhymed with the word it; and in the eighth line of the second, the word place was evidently written carelessly, instead of plain, or some other word of a similar termination. In the corresponding sonnet, the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth lines rhyme to each other. In the former sonnet, the allusion to the name of the writer is an additional confirmation of what has been said on the propensity of that age to “a dalliance with names.”

Note return to page 302 8Samuel Daniel was born in Somersetshire, in 1562, and educated at Magdalen-College, in Oxford, where he studied about five years. In 1585, he first became known to the public by translating a tract of Paulus Jovius, on Impresses. But he did not commence poet till 1592, when his sonnets, which are here referred to, and his Complaint of Rosamond, were published in quarto. When the present eulogy was written, he was about thirty-two years old. He died in 1619. How very highly Daniel was estimated in his own time, and surely considerably above his deserts (though he was not wholly devoid of merit), may be learned from the high eulogies which his poetry extorted from others, as well as from Spenser. “As Parthenius Nicæus (says Meres) excellently sung the praises of his Arete, so Daniel hath divinely soneted the matchlesse beauty of his Delia.” Wit's Treasury, 8vo. 1598, p. 280. In one of the miscellanies of that era, of which I have neglected to set down the title, is a paper of verses, addressed to Mr. Samuel Daniel, Prince of English Poets.

Note return to page 303 9In Colin Clout, Spenser thus describes Ralegh's visit to him: “One day, quoth he [Colin], I sat as was my trade,   “Under the foot of Mole, that mountain hore, “Keeping my sheep amongst the cooly shade   “Of the greene alders by the Mullaes shore. “There a straunge shepheard chaunced to find me out,   “Whether allured with my pipe's delight, “Whose pleasing sound yshrilled far about,   “Or thither led by chaunce, I know not right: “Whom when I asked from what place he came,   “And how he hight, him selfe he did yclepe, “The Shepheard of the Ocean by name,   “And said he came far from the main sea deepe. “He sitting me beside in that same shade,   “Provoked me to plaie some pleasant fit, “And when he heard the musick which I made,   “He found him selfe full-greatly pleased at it. “Yet æmuling my pipe, he took in hand   “My pipe before that æmuled of many, “And plaid thereon, for well that skill he cond,   “Him-selfe as skilfull in that art as any.”

Note return to page 304 1The various circumstances of Ralegh's life are so generally known, that it is not necessary to give here even an abridgment of them. I shall, therefore, confine myself to his actions in Ireland, his connexion with Spenser, his marriage with Elizabeth Throckmorton and his subsequent disgrace, and his poetical productions; particulars connected in some measure with the verses before us, and concerning which the information supplied by his biographers is so imperfect and erroneous, that to state them truly will require a disquisition too long for this place. See the Appendix.

Note return to page 305 2Alice, the sixth daughter of Sir John Spenser, knight, was married to Ferdinand Lord Strange, some time before Dec. 1583. (Peck's Desid. Curios. vol. i. p. 116, 4to.) Six years after her husband's death she married (Oct. 21, 1600) Sir Thomas Egerton, then lord keeper of the great seal. Before this lady, in 1633, Milton's Masque was originally presented at Hatfield, by the grandchildren of her second husband. Harrington, as Mr. Warton has observed, has an epigram highly in her praise, book iii. ep. 47. She died Jan. 26, 1635–6. Her sister Elisabeth, whom Spenser has distinguished by the name of Phillis, was the second daughter of Sir John Spenser, and the wife of Sir George Carey, eldest son of Henry Lord Hunsdon. Spenser's Charillis, was Anne, the fifth daughter of the same person, who had first married William Stanley, Lord Monteagle, and secondly, Henry, Lord Compton, and was at this time the second wife of Robert Sackville, eldest son of Thomas, Lord Buckhurst. In the group of court ladies afterwards introduced in this poem, they are thus described: “Ne less praiseworthy are the sisters three,   “The honour of the noble family, “Of which I meanest boast my selfe to be,   “And most that unto them I am so nigh; “Phillis, Charillis, and sweet Amarillis:   “Phillis the fair, is eldest of the three; “The next to her is beautiful Charillis;   “But the youngest is the highest in degree.” After having expatiated in the praise of Phyllis and Charillis, with whom we are less concerned, the poet adds— “But Amaryllis, whether fortunate,   “Or else unfortunate, may I aread, “That freed is from Cupid's yoke by fate,   “Since which she doth new bonds adventure dread. “Shepherd, whatever thou hast heard to be   “In this or that prays'd diversely apart, “In her thou mayst them all assembled see,   “And seald up in the treasure of her heart.” In his Dedication of The Tears of the Muses to this lady, under the title of Lady Strange, he speaks of her and her lord with no less admiration and respect: “Most brave and noble Ladie; The things that make ye so much honored of the world as ye bee, are such as without my simple lines' testimonie are throughlie known to all men; namely, your excellent beautie, your virtuous behaviour, and your noble match with that most honorable lord, the verie pattern of right nobilitie. But the causes of which you have deserved of me to be honored, if honour it be at all, are both your particular bounties, and also some private bands of affinitie.”

Note return to page 306 3This passage, which has hitherto, I believe, escaped notice, affords so strong a confirmation of Spenser's eulogy on Ferdinand, Earl of Derby, that I shall transcribe it entire. It is found near the conclusion of Nashe's popular tract, entitled Pierce Pennilesse his Supplication to the Divell, of which the first edition appeared in the autumn of 1592: “But from generall fame, let me digres to my private experience, and with a tongue unworthie to name a name of such worthines, affectionately emblazon to the eyes that wonder, the matchless image of honour, and magnificent rewarder of vertue, Jove's eagle-borne Ganimed, thrise noble Amintas: in whose high spirit such a deitie of wisdome appereth, that if Homer were to write his Odyssea new (where under the person of Ulysses he describeth a singular man of perfection, in whome all ornaments both of peace and war are assembled in the height of their excellence) he need no other instance to augment his conceipt, than the rare carriage of his honorable minde. Many writers and good wits are given to commend their patrons and benefactors, some for prowesse, some for policie, others for the glorie of their ancestrie and exceeding bountie and liberalitie; but if my unable pen should ever enterprise such a continuate taske of praise, I woulde embowell a number of these wind-puft bladders, and disfurnish their bald pates, of the periwigs poets have lent them; that so I might restore glorie to his right inheritance, and these stolen titles to their true owners: which, if it would so fall out (as time maie worke all things), the aspiring nettles with their shady toppes shall no longer over-dreep the best hearbs, or keep them from the smiling aspect of the Sunn, that live and shine by his comfortable beames: none but Desert should sit in Fame's grace: none but Hector be remembered in the chronicles of prowesse, none but thou, most courteous Amyntas, be the second mystical argument of the Knight of the Red Crosse. O decus atque ævi gloria summa tui! “And heere, heavenly Spencer, I am most highlie to acuse thee of forgetfulnes, that in that honorable catalogue of our English heroes, which insueth the conclusion of thy famous Fairie Queene, thou wouldest let so special a piller of nobilitie passe unsaluted. The verie thought of his farre-derived descent, and extraordinarie parts, wherewith he astonieth the world, and draws all hearts to his love, would have inspired thy forewearied Muse, with new furie to proceed, to the next triumphs of thy statelie Goddesse; but I, in favour of so rare a scholler, suppose with this counsell he refrained his mention in this first part, that he might with full saile proceede to his due commendation in the second. Of this occasion long since I happened to frame a sonnet, which being wholie intended to the reverence of this renowned lord (to whom I owe all the utmost powers of my love and dutie), I meane here, for varietie of stile to insert: “Perusing yesterday with idle eyes   “The Fairie Singers statelie tuned verse, “And viewing, after chapmen's wonted guise   “What strange contents the title did rehearse; “I streight leapt over to the latter end,   “Where, like the queint comedians of our time, “That when their play is doone, do fall to ryme,   “I found short lines to sundrie nobles pend; “Whom he as speciall mirrours singled fourth,   “To be the patrons of his poetry: “I read them all, and reverenc't their worth;   “Yet wondred he left out thy memory: “But therefore gest I, he supprest thy name, “Because few words might not compose thy fame.” “Beare with me, gentle poet, though I conceive not aright of thy purpose, or be too inquisitive into the intent of thy oblivion: for, however my conjecture may miss the cushion, yet shall my speech savour of friendship, though it be not alied to judgement.” It is observable that Lord Derby is here denominated the second mystical argument of Spenser's Red Cross Knight, as Sir Philip Sidney was undoubtedly intended to be shadowed in his Arthur. All the Knights of the Faery Queen, it is well known, had their original in the Court of Elizabeth. Mr. Upton supposed that Amintas, mentioned by Spenser in his Faery Queen, book iii. c. vi. st. 45, was also the Earl of Derby; but undoubtedly he was mistaken. The Amintas there alluded to, “to whom sweet poet's verse hath given endless date,” is the poetical Amintas of Watson, who, according to him, was turned into an Amaranth; and the two poets there complimented were Watson and Fraunce. See p. 253, note †.

Note return to page 307 4Gabriel Harvey, in a manuscript which will be quoted hereafter, joins the poem of Amyntas with Astrophel. The piece which he has there alluded to, should seem, therefore, to have been an English composition, and perhaps was written by Lord Derby.

Note return to page 308 5That Spenser sometimes in this manner shadowed real persons under poetical names given them by others, appears from a passage in his Ruins of Time, 1591: “Therefore in this 'halfe happie do I read   “Good Melibæ, that hath a poet got “To sing his living praises, being dead,   “Deserving never here to be forgot.” Melibæ was here intended to designate Sir Francis Walsingham; and Spenser thus denominates him, in consequence of Thomas Watson having published in the preceding year a Latin elegiack poem in honour of his memory, entitled Melibæus.—So, Thestylis, whom he has introduced as a shepherd in Colin Clout, was certainly meant to represent his friend, Lodowick Bryskett, who, a few years before, had written an elegy on the death of Sir Philip Sidney, under the title of “The Mourning Muse of Thestylis.”

Note return to page 309 6It is highly praised by Nashe in his Epistle prefixed to Green's Arcadia, 1589. This poem, which is in 8vo. contains the complaints of Amintas for eleven days after the death of Phillis, and is divided into eleven sections, each of which is entitled Querela (Prima, Secunda, &c.) On the eleventh day Amintas dies. The only copy of this very rare piece that I have seen, is in the British Museum. In 1587, Abraham Fraunce published a translation of it, with the following title: “The Lamentation of Amyntas for the Death of Phillis, paraphrastically translated out of Latine into English hexameters.” He also published in 1591, “The Countess of Pembroke's Ivy Church, containing the affectionate Life, and unfortunate Death of Phillis and Amyntas, that in a pastorall, this in a funeral; both in English hexameters.” “An ould facioned love translated from Watson's Amintas,” by J. T. was published in 4to. in 1594. Watson's Latin poem, entitled Amintæ Gaudia, was a posthumous production (4to. 1592), and is not the “sugred Amyntas,” praised by Nashe. Watson also wrote some English verses, entitled “Amintas [lamenting] for the Death of his Phillis,” which are preserved in England's Helicon, 4to. 1600.

Note return to page 310 7See the History of the English Stage, in vol. iii. After the death of Ferdinand, Earl of Derby, in 1594, the troop of comedians that had been patronized by him, became the servants of the Lord Admiral, Charles, Earl of Nottingham.

Note return to page 311 8This poem is preserved in The Antiquarian Repertory, vol. iii. p. 133. It was printed from a manuscript volume belonging to Sir John Hawkins, which perished in the fire that consumed his house in Queen Square, in the year 1788. The heroine of this poem is Phillis, but her lover's name is not mentioned. Some of his poetry is preserved in a collection entitled “Belvidere, or the Garden of the Muses,” as the editor informs us in his preface; but the verses in that work being printed without appropriation to their author, we know not which are Lord Derby's.

Note return to page 312 9See the Dedication of The Tears of the Muses, quoted ante, p. 265, n. 2.

Note return to page 313 1It is highly probable, that in the selection of some of the poets here enumerated and eulogized, Spenser was governed in some degree by personal kindness. The principal poets whom he has omitted, comprising them under the general words—“All these, and many others moe, remaine,” &c. were, The Earl of Oxford, Lord Buckhurst, Sir Edward Dyer, Sir John Harrington, William Warner, Henry Constable, Sir John Davys, Michael Drayton, Matthew Roydon, Joshua Sylvester, and George Chapman.— Watson, Turberville, Marlowe, and Greene, were at this time dead, and therefore could not, according to his scheme, be introduced.

Note return to page 314 2See Lodge's Illustrations of British History, iii. 37. The disagreement between Lord Essex and Lord Derby, which gave rise to the Letters printed by Mr. Lodge, is referred to by Sir John Harrington, Nugæ Antiquæ, vol. i. p. 114, edit. 1804. Other letters written by this gentleman are preserved in Peck's Desid. Curios. vol. i. p. 115, 141. Ferdinand, Earl of Derby, was educated at College, in Cambridge, and was created Master of Arts at Oxford in Sept. 1589, together with Sir George Carew, and Sir John Spenser of Althorp. Wood's Ath. Oxon. i. Fast. 138. Chapman, in an Epistle to his friend Matthew Roydon, prefixed to his poem entitled The Shadow of Night, published in 1594, thus highly commends this nobleman: “But I stay this spleen, when I remember, my good Mat. how joyfully oftentimes you reported unto me, that most ingenious Darbie, deepe-searching Northumberland [Henry, the ninth Earl] and skill-imbracing heire of Hunsdon [George, afterwards the second Lord Hunsdon] had most profitably entertained learning in themselves, to the vital warmth of freezing science, and to the admirable luster of their true nobilitie.”

Note return to page 315 3Camden, Hist. Eliz. vol. iii. p. 685, edit. Hearne; and Collins's Peerage, under the title of Derby. Sir John Harrington also alludes to “the hastened fate” of Ferdinand Earl of Derby, whom he styles “one of England's greatest peers.” Epig. book iii. ep. 47. His portrait is yet preserved at the ancient seat of this noble family in Lancashire.

Note return to page 316 4We find a similar eulogy in Spenser's verses addressed to his admired friend Ralegh, at the end of his third book of his Faery Queene, 4to. 1590: “To thee that art the summers nightingale   “Thy soveraigne goddesses most deare delight, “Why do I send this rustick madrigale   “That may thy tunefull eare unseason quite? “Then only fit this argument to write, “In whose high thoughts Pleasure hath built her boure.”

Note return to page 317 5Thus we have Acrates, Panope, Melissa, Philotime, Timias, Archimago, Eudoxus, and others of a similar formation. In like manner, Sir Philip Sidney, in consequence of his passion for Stella, was denominated Astrophil, which, from some fancy, Spenser always wrote Astrophel or Astrofell, but which, conformably to the etymology, ought certainly to be written Astrophil, as Matthew Roydon has written it in his Elegy on Sidney. See Appendix.

Note return to page 318 6A translation of Axiocha's Dialogues, attributed to Plato, by Spenser, was, I believe, published in 1592.

Note return to page 319 7From &gra; priv. and &grH;&grS;&grS;&grW;&grN; or &grH;&grT;&grI;&grW;&grN; or &grH;&grT;&grT;&grO;&grN;, inferior. Perhaps indeed he might have meant that our poet was inferior to none. So, in his Faery Queen, b. iii. c. iii. st. 54: “&lblank; in that royal hous, “From whence, to none inferior, ye came.”

Note return to page 320 8From &gra;&gri;&grt;&gri;&gro;&grn;, causa: so we have in Latin, Ætiologia, derived in part from the same Greek root. My former conjecture, however, appears to me the more probable of the two.

Note return to page 321 9Fuller, as well as Spenser, alludes to the heroick sound of our poet's name. “In Shakespeare,” says he (Worthies, Warw. p. 126), “three eminent poets may seem in some sort to be compounded. 1. Martial; in the warlike sound of his surname, whence some may conjecture him of a military extraction, hasti-vibrans, or Shake-speare.” Ben Jonson, in his posthumous verses on our author, has a similar allusion to Shakspeare's name: “&lblank; Look how the father's face “Lives in his issue; even so the grace “Of Shakspeare's mind and manners brightly shines “In his well-torned and true filed lines; “In each of which he seems to shake a lance, “As brandish'd at the eyes of ignorance.” See also Bancroft's Epigrams, 4to. 1639, signat. D 2, where our poet is thus addressed: “Thou hast so used thy pen, or shook thy speare, “That poets startle, not thy wit come near.” In a description of two knights tilting, in Spenser's Faery Queen, b. iii. c. i. st. 7, we find the component parts of our poet's name thus heroically introduced: “Great shame and sorrow of that fall he tooke, “For never yet, sith warlike armes he bore “And shivering speare in bloody field first shook, “He found him selfe dishonored so sore.”

Note return to page 322 1See also Nashe's Have With You to Saffron Walden, 4to. 1596, Signat. R. “Doctors Dove and Clarencius I turne loose to bee their owne arbitrators and advocates, .... as also in like sort, Master Spencer, whom I do not thrust into the lowest place, because I make the lowest valuation of, but as we use to sett the summ' tot' underneath or at the bottom, he being the summ'd tot' of whatsoever can be said of sharpe invention and schollership.” “Though last, not least,” seems to have been a common formula in that age; and is always applied to a person very highly valued by the speaker. “Next like an ale-house ruffen, with his dagger he slew the infortunate good King Henry the Sixt in the Tower of London. Then heaping murder upon murder, he caused George Duke of Clarence, his natural brother, to be drowned in a butte of malmsey; and last, though not the least, to rowle up a number of noble subjectes, ends with the death of Edward the Fift, and Richard Duke of Yorke,” &c. Again, in the Remembraunce of the woorthie and well imployed Life of the Right Honourable Sir Nicholas Bacon, &c. by the same author, 4to. [1578]: “The last, but not of worldly evils the least, “When we have fed of vaine delights our fill, “Death comes in fine &lblank;.” So, in Kyd's Spanish Tragedy: “The third and last, not least in our account.” Again, in his Cornelia, 1594: “And last, not least, bereft of my best father.” Again, in Sylvester's Dubartas, 4to. 1605, p. 185: “Thou last, not least, brave eagle, no contempt “Made me so long thy storie hence exempt.” Again, in the old anonymous play, entitled The History of King Leir, 4to. 1605: “&lblank; to thee last of all, “Not greeted last, 'cause thy desert is small.” Again, in A Woman Will Have her Will, a comedy by William Houghton, acted in 1598: “Last, yet as great in love, as to the first, “If you remember,” &c. So, also, our author in his King Lear, 4to. 1608: “&lblank; But now, our joy, “Although the last, not least in our dear love.” Again, in his Julius Cæsar: “Though last, not least in love, yours, good Trebonius.” Again, in Puttenham's Arte of Poesie, 1589: “But lest in recitall and first in degree, the Queen our sovereign ladie, whose learned, delicate, noble muse, easilie surmounteth all the rest that have written before her time or since, for sense, sweetnesse, and subtilltie, be it in ode, elegie, epigram, or any other kind of poeme, heroick or lyricke, wherein it shall please Her Majestie to employ her penne, even by so much oddes as her owne excellent estate and degree exceedeth all the rest of her most humble vassals.”—[Here we find that Spenser's Eulogy on Her Majesty's poetry, extravagant as it is, was only the common language of that time.] Thus also Webster (though the last, not the least apposite authority) in the preface to his White Devil, 1612: “&lblank; and lastly, without wrong last to be named, the right happy and copious industrie of Master Shake-speare,” &c.

Note return to page 323 2Epistle prefixed to Greene's Arcadia, 4to. 1589.

Note return to page 324 3That by the words “The other,” was meant Shakspeare, will be shewn in the Essay on the Order of his plays.

Note return to page 325 4In the margin this cautious puritan adds—“Some players modest, if I be not deceived.”

Note return to page 326 5&lblank; Charles Hart.] Mr. Charles Hart the player was born, I believe, about the year 1630, and died in or about 1682. If he was a grandson of Shakspeare's sister, he was probably the son of Michael Hart, her youngest son, of whose marriage or death there is no account in the parish register of Stratford, and therefore I suspect he settled in London. [Charles Hart died in August, 1683, and was buried at Stanmore the 20th of that month. Lysons's Environs of London, vol. iii. p. 400. Reed.]

Note return to page 327 6The first edition of this Essay was published in January, 1778.

Note return to page 328 7Within the period here mentioned, the commentaries of Warburton, Edwards, Heath, Johnson, Tyrwhitt, Farmer, and Steevens, have been published.

Note return to page 329 6It is not pretended that a regular scale of gradual improvement is here presented to the publick; or that, if even Shakspeare himself had left us a chronological list of his dramas, it would exhibit such a scale. All that is meant is, that, as his knowledge increased, and as he became more conversant with the stage and with life, his performances in general were written more happily and with greater art; or (to use the words of Dr. Johnson) “that however favoured by nature, he could only impart what he had learned, and as he must increase his ideas, like other mortals, by gradual acquisition, he, like them, grew wiser, as he grew older, could display life better as he knew it more, and instruct with more efficacy, as he was himself more amply instructed.” Of this opinion also was Mr. Pope. “It must be observed (says he), that when his performances had merited the protection of his prince, and when the encouragement of the court had succeeded to that of the town, the works of his riper years are manifestly raised above those of the former.—And I make no doubt that this observation would be found true in every instance, were but editions extant from which we might learn the exact time when every piece was composed, and whether writ for the town or the court.”—From the following lines it appears, that Dryden also thought that our author's most imperfect plays were his earliest dramatick compositions: “Your Ben and Fletcher in their first young flight, “Did no Volpone, no Arbaces write: “But hopp'd about, and short excursions made “From bough to bough, as if they were afraid; “And each were guilty of some Slighted Maid. “Shakspeare's own muse his Pericles first bore; “The Prince of Tyre was elder than the Moor: “'Tis miracle to see a first good play; “All hawthorns do not bloom on Christmas-day. “A slender poet must have time to grow, “And spread and burnish, as his brothers do: “Who still looks lean, sure with some p&wblank; is curst, “But no man can be Falstaff fat at first.” Prologue to the tragedy of Circe. The plays which Shakspeare produced before the year 1600, are known, and are seventeen or eighteen in number. The rest of his dramas, we may conclude, were composed between that year and the time of his retiring to the country. It is incumbent on those, who differ in opinion from the great authorities above-mentioned, —who think with Rowe, that “we are not to look for his beginnings in his least perfect works,” it is incumbent, I say, on those persons, to enumerate in the former class, that is, among the plays produced before 1600, compositions of equal merit with Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, The Tempest, and Twelfth-Night, which we have reason to believe were all written in the latter period; and among his late performances, that is, among the plays that are supposed to have appeared after the year 1600, to point out pieces, as hasty and indigested, as Love's Labour's Lost, The Comedy of Errors, and The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which, we know, were among his earlier works.

Note return to page 330 7They are King Henry VI. Part I., The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. (as he wrote them) The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, King John, All's Well that Ends Well, As You Like It, King Henry VIII. Measure for Measure, The Winter's Tale, Cymbeline, Macbeth, Julius Cæsar, Antony and Cleopatra, Timon of Athens, Coriolanus, Othello, The Tempest, and Twelfth-Night. None of these, except Othello, were printed in quarto, but appeared first in the folio edition published by Heminge and Condell, in 1623. Of these plays, seven, viz. The First Part of King Henry VI. (allowing that play to be Shakspeare's), The Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. King John, The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew, and The Two Gentlemen of Verona, were certainly early compositions, and are an exception to the general truth of this observation. One other,, viz. All's Well that Ends Well, though supposed to have been an early production, was, it must be acknowledged, not published in Shakspeare's life-time; but for the date of this play we rely only on conjecture.

Note return to page 331 8This supposition is strongly confirmed by Meres's list of our author's plays, in 1598. From that list, and from other circumstances, we learn, that of the fourteen plays which were printed in Shakspeare's life-time, thirteen were written before the end of the year 1600. The fourteen plays published in our author's life-time, are—A Midsummer-Night's Dream, Love's Labour's Lost, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, King Richard II. King Richard III. The First Part of King Henry IV. The Second Part of King Henry IV. The Merchant of Venice, King Henry V. Much Ado about Nothing, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Troilus and Cressida, and King Lear.

Note return to page 332 9None of the plays which in the ensuing list are supposed to have been written subsequently to this year, were printed till after the author's death, except King Lear, the publication of which was probably hastened by that of the old play with the same title, in 1605.—The copy of Troilus and Cressida, which seems to have been composed the year before King James granted a licence to the company at the Globe Theatre, appears to have been obtained by some uncommon artifice. “Thank fortune (says the editor) for the scape it hath made amongst you; since, by the grand possessors' wills, I believe, you should have pray'd for them [r. it] rather than been pray'd.”—By the grand possessors, Shakspeare and the other managers of the Globe Theatre, were certainly intended.

Note return to page 333 1“There was not (says Heywood, in his preface to Greene's Tu Quoque, a comedy), an actor of his nature in his time, of better ability in the performance of what he undertook, more applauded by the audience, of greater grace at the court, or of more general love in the city.” The birth-place of Thomas Greene is ascertained by the following lines, which he speaks in one of the old comedies, in the character of a clown: “I pratled poesie in my nurse's arms, “And, born where late our swan of Avon sung, “In Avon's streams we both of us have lav'd, “And both came out together* [Subnote: *The turn of these lines is apparently borrowed from a passage in Milton's Lycidas. See v. 23, et seq. The whole is a forgery by Chetwood. Steevens. I cannot think this probable. Chetwood was not likely to have been a writer of verses; nor can I see much resemblance between these lines and those referred to in Lycidas. That the reader may form his own judgment on this point, I shall quote the passage from Milton:   “For we were nurs'd upon the self same hill,   “Fed the same flock by fountain, shade, and rill.   “Together both, ere the high lawns appear'd   “Under the opening eye-lids of the morn,   “We drove a-field, and both together heard   “What time the gray-fly winds her sultry horn,   “Battening our flocks with the fresh dews of night,   “Oft till the star, that rose, at evening bright, “Toward Heaven's descend had slop'd his westering wheel.” Boswell.].” Chetwood, in his British Theatre, quotes this passage from the comedy of the Two Maids of Moreclack; but no such passage is there to be found. He deserves but little credit, having certainly forged many of his dates; however, he probably met with these lines in some ancient play, though he forgot the name of the piece from which he transcribed them. Greene was a writer as well as an actor. There are some verses of his prefixed to a collection of Drayton's poems, published in the year 1613. In the register of the parish of Stratford, Thomas Greene, alias Shaxpere, is said to have been buried there, March 6, 1589. He might have been the actor's father.

Note return to page 334 2The author of Promos and Cassandra, a play which furnished Shakspeare with the fable of Measure for Measure.

Note return to page 335 3This poet is mentioned by Meres, in his Wit's Treasury, 1598, as an eminent comick writer, and the best plotter of his time. He seems to have been introduced under the name of Don Antonio Balladino, in a comedy that has been attributed to Ben Jonson, called The Case is Altered, and from the following passages in that piece appears to have been city-poet; whose business it was to compose an annual panegyrick on the Lord Mayor, and to write verses for the pageants; an office which has been discontinued since the death of Elkanah Settle in 1722: “Onion. Shall I request your name? “Ant. My name is Antonio Balladino. “Oni. Balladino! You are not pageant-poet to the city of Milan, sir, are you? “Ant. I supply the place, sir, when a worse cannot be had, sir.—Did you see the last pageant I set forth?” Afterwards Antonio, speaking of the plays he had written, says: “Let me have good ground,—no matter for the pen; the plot shall carry it. “Oni. Indeed that's right; you are in print already for the best plotter. “Ant. Ay, I might as well have been put in for a dumb-shew too.” It is evident, that this poet is here intended to be ridiculed by Ben Jonson: but he might, notwithstanding, have been deservedly eminent. That malignity which endeavoured to tear a wreath from the brow of Shakspeare, would certainly not spare inferior writers.

Note return to page 336 4The thirty-first chapter of the first book of Puttenham's Art of English Poesy is thus entitled: “Who in any age have bene the most commended writers in our English Poesie, and the author's censure given upon them.” After having enumerated several authors who were then celebrated for various kinds of composition, he gives this succinct account of those who had written for the stage: “Of the latter sort I thinke thus;—that for tragedie, the Lord Buckhurst and Maister Edward Ferrys, for such doings as I have sene of theirs, do deserve the hyest price; the Earl of Oxford and Maister Edwardes of her Majestie's Chappell, for comedie and enterlude.”

Note return to page 337 5Additions by Oldys to Winstanley's Lives of the Poets, MS.

Note return to page 338 6Probably in October, for on the Stationers' books I find The Repentaunce of Robert Greene, Master of Arts, entered by John Danter, Oct. 6, 1592. The full title of Greene's pamphlet is, “Greene's Groatsworth of Wit bought with a Million of Repentance.”

Note return to page 339 7Nashe himself also takes some pains in an Epistle prefixed to Pierce Pennilesse, &c. to vindicate himself from being the author of Greene's Groatsworth of Wit.

Note return to page 340 8Pierce Pennilesse his Supplication, &c. was first published in that year, being entered for the first time on the Stationers' books by Richard Jones, Aug. 1592. There was a second edition in the same year, printed by Abell Jeffes for John Busbie.

Note return to page 341 9Thus Talbot is described in The First Part of K. Henry VI. Act I. Sc. III: “Here, said they, is the terror of the French.” Again, in Act V. Sc. I: “Is Talbot slain, the Frenchman's only scourage, “Your kingdom's terror?”

Note return to page 342 1Kyd was also, I suspect, the author of the old plays of Hamlet, and of King Leir. See the article on Hamlet.

Note return to page 343 2At the close of the Dissertation on the three parts of Henry VI. I have informed the reader that Mr. Malone had altered his opinion with regard to the original writers of the second and third of these plays, but have not incorporated in that Essay the supposed correction which he has here made. That Marlowe may have had some share in these compositions, I am not disposed to deny; but I cannot persuade myself that they entirely proceeded from his pen. Some passages are possessed of so much merit, that they can scarcely be ascribed to any one except the most distinguished of Shakspeare's predecessors; but the tameness of the general style is very different from the peculiar characteristics of that poet's “mighty line,” which are great energy both of thought and language, degenerating too frequently into tumour and extravagance. The versification appears to me to be also of a different colour. Marlowe, as I have endeavoured to show in the Essay on Shakspeare's Metre, although he was not altogether free from the monotonous pomp of numbers which is found in all his contemporaries, had less of it than any writer of that time, and has introduced a variety of pauses into English blank verse, which, however it may fall short of the endlessly diversified melody of Shakspeare, yet places him, in this respect, much above the models which were before him. Dr. Farmer's interpretation of the passage in Ben Jonson's commendatory verses, seems very hastily formed. Shakspeare might well be said to have outshined Marlowe, Kyd, and Lilly, without its being supposed that he had new-modelled their plays. From Lilly he appears to have taken nothing; and Kyd is conjectured to have been a writer of comedy upon very slight foundation. Jonson is in the habit of turning the author of Jeronimo into ridicule, and, I believe, upon this occasion, meant merely a quibble upon the name of a writer whom he never could mention without some ludicrous recollection. That Marlowe, Peele, and Greene, may all of them have had a share in these dramas, is consonant to the frequent practice of that age, of which ample proofs may be found in the extracts from Henslowe's MSS. vol. iii. I should not omit to mention here, that I find some slight memoranda by Mr. Malone, in which he seems to ascribe these plays to so late a period as 1600. I have stated at the end of his Dissertation, why I think his conjectures unfounded. I shall only add here, that if Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing are correctly placed in 1600, it can scarcely be supposed that any other dramas could be produced in the same year by Shakspeare. Boswell.

Note return to page 344 7The words heir and hair were, I make no doubt, pronounced alike in Shakspeare's time, and hence they are frequently confounded in the old copies of his plays.

Note return to page 345 2Bacon's Works, vol. iv. 412. State Trials, vol. viii. p. 60.

Note return to page 346 3As this circumstance is more than once mentioned, in the course of these observations, it may not be improper to add a few words on the subject of our author's metre. A mixture of rhymes with blank verse, in the same play, and sometimes in the same scene, is found in almost all his pieces, and is not peculiar to Shakspeare, being also found in the works of Jonson, and almost all our ancient dramatick writers. It is not, therefore, merely the use of rhymes, mingled with blank verse, but their frequency, that is here urged, as a circumstance which seems to characterize and distinguish our poet's earliest performances. In the whole number of pieces which were written antecedent to the year 1600, and which, for the sake of perspicuity, have been called his early compositions, more rhyming couplets are found, than in all the plays composed subsequently to that year, which have been named his late productions. Whether in process of time Shakspeare grew weary of the bondage of rhyme, or whether he became convinced of its impropriety in a dramatick dialogue, his neglect of rhyming (for he never wholly disused it) seems to have been gradual. As, therefore, most of his early productions are characterized by the multitude of similar terminations which they exhibit, whenever of two early pieces it is doubtful which preceded the other. I am disposed to believe (other proofs being wanting) that play in which the greater number of rhymes is found, to have been first composed. The plays founded on the story of King Henry VI, do not indeed abound in rhymes; but this probably arose from their being originally constructed by preceding writers.

Note return to page 347 4This writer, to whose list of our author's plays we are so much indebted, appears, from the following passage of the work here mentioned, to have been personally acquainted with Shakspeare: “As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras, so the sweet soul of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakspeare. Witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private friends,” &c. Wit's Treasury, p. 282. There is no edition of Shakspeare's Sonnets, now extant, of so early a date as 1598, when Meres's book was printed; so that we may conclude, he was one of those friends to whom they were privately recited, before their publication.

Note return to page 348 5This book was probably published in the latter end of the year 1598; for it was not entered at Stationers' Hall till September in that year.

Note return to page 349 6See vol. iv. p. 443, n. 4.

Note return to page 350 7See a note on As You Like It, vol. vi. p. 503, n. 9.

Note return to page 351 8“There was one Bankes in the time of Tarlton, who served the Earl of Essex, and had a horse of strange qualities; and being at the Cross Keyes in Gracious-streete, getting money with him, as he was mightily resorted to, Tarlton then (with his fellowes) playing at the Bell [f. Bull] by, came into the Cross keyes, amongst many people to see fashions: which Bankes perceiving, to make the people laugh, saies, ‘Signior,’ to his horse, ‘go fetch me the veriest foole in the company.’ The jade comes immediately, and with his mouth drawes Tarlton forth. Tarlton, with merry words, said nothing but ‘God a-mercy, horse.’ In the end Tarlton seeing the people laugh so, was angry inwardly, and said, ‘Sir, had I power of your horse, as you have, I would do more than that.’ ‘Whate'er it be,’ said Bankes, to please him, ‘I will charge him to do it.’ ‘Then,’ saies Tarlton, ‘charge him to bring me the veryest whore-master in the company.’ ‘He shall,’ saies Bankes. ‘Signior,’ says he, ‘bring Master Tarlton the veryest whore-master in the company.’ The horse leads his master to him. Then, ‘God a-mercy, horse, indeed,’ saies Tarleton. The people had much ado to keep peace: but Bankes and Tarleton had like to have squared, and the horse by, to give aime. But ever after it was a by word thorow London, ‘God-a-mercy, horse!’ and is to this day.” Tarleton's Jests, 4to. 1611.—Tarleton died in 1589.

Note return to page 352 9See p. 327, n. 3.

Note return to page 353 1Dryden was of opinion that Pericles, Prince of Tyre, was our author's first dramatic composition: “Shakspeare's own muse his Pericles first bore, “The Prince of Tyre was elder than The Moor.” Prologue to the Tragedy of Circe, by Charles D'Avenant, 1677. Mr. Rowe in his Life of Shakspeare (first edition) says, “There is good reason to believe that the greatest part of Pericles was not written by him, though it is owned some part of it certainly was, particularly the last Act.” I have not been able to learn on what authority the latter assertion was grounded. Rowe in his second edition omitted the passage. Pericles was not entered on the Stationers' books till May 2, 1608, nor printed till 1609; but the following lines in a metrical pamphlet, entitled Pimlyco, or Runne Red-cap, 1609, ascertain it to have been written and exhibited on the stage, prior to that year: “Amazde I stood to see a crowd “Of civil throats stretch'd out so lowd: “(As at a new play,) all the roomes “Did swarm with gentiles mix'd with groomes; “So that I truly thought all these “Came to see Shore or Pericles.” The play of Jane Shore is mentioned (together with another very ancient piece not now extant) in The Knight of the Burning Pestle, 1613: “I was ne'er at one of these plays before; but I should have seen Jane Shore, and my husband hath promised me any time this twelvemonth to carry me to The Bold Beauchamps.” The date of The Bold Beauchamps is in some measure ascertained by a passage in D'Avenant's Playhouse to be let: “&lblank; There is an old tradition, “That in the times of mighty Tamburlaine, “Of conjuring Faustus, and The Beauchamps Bold, “You poets used to have the second day.” Tamburlain and Faustus were exhibited in or before 1590. The Lamentable End of Shore's Wife also made a part of the old anonymous play of King Richard III. which was entered in the Stationers' books, June 19, 1594. Both the dramas in which Jane Shore was introduced were probably on the stage soon after 1590; and from the manner in which Pericles is mentioned in the verses above quoted, we may presume, that drama was equally ancient and equally well known.

Note return to page 354 2The learned editor of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, printed in 1775, observes in his introductory discourse (vol. iv. p. 161), that Pluto and Proserpina in the Marchant's Tale, appear to have been “the true progenitors of Shakspeare's Oberon and Titania.” In a tract already quoted, Greene's Groatsworth of Witte, 1592, a player is introduced, who boasts of having performed the part of the King of Fairies with applause. Greene himself wrote a play, entitled The Scottishe Historie of James the Fourthe, slaine at Floddon, intermixed with a pleasant Comedie presented by Oberon King of Fayeries; which was entered at Stationers' Hall in 1594, and printed in 1598. Shakspeare, however, does not appear to have been indebted to this piece. The plan of it is shortly this. Bohan, a Scot, in consequence of being disgusted with the world, having retired to a tomb where he has fixed his dwelling, is met by Aster Oberon, king of the fairies, who entertains him with an antick or dance by his subjects. These two personages, after some conversation, determine to listen to a tragedy, which is acted before them, and to which they make a kind of chorus, by moralizing at the end of each Act.

Note return to page 355 5“The thrice three muses, mourning for the death “Of learning, late deceas'd in beggary.”

Note return to page 356 6Preface to Spenser's View of the State of Ireland. Dublin, fol. 1633. This treatise was written, according to Sir James Ware, in 1596. The testimony of that historian, relative to the time of Spenser's death, is confirmed by a fact related by Ben Jonson to Mr. Drummond of Hawthornden, and recorded by that writer. When Spenser and his wife were forced in great distress to fly from their house, which was burnt in the Irish Rebellion, the Earl of Essex sent him twenty pieces; but he refused them; telling the person that brought them, he was sure he had no time to spend them. He died soon afterwards, according to Ben Jonson's account, in King Street. Lord Essex was not in Ireland in 1598, and was there from April to September in the following year. It should also be remembered that verses by Spenser are prefixed to Lewknor's Commonwealth and Government of Venice, published in 1599. That this celebrated poet was alive in Sept. 1598, is proved by the following paper, addressed by Queen Elizabeth to the Lords Justices of Ireland, which is preserved in the Museum, MSS. Harl. 286, and has not, I believe, been noticed by any of his biographers: Last of Sept. 1598 “To the Lords Justices of Ireland. “Though we doubt not but you will without any motion from us have good regard for the appointing of meete and serviceable persons to be Sheriffs in the several counties, which is a matter of great importance, especially at this time, when all parts of the realme are tinged with the infection of rebellion, yet wee thinke it not amisse sometime to recommend unto you such men as wee should [wish] to have for that office. Among whom we may justly reckon Edm. Spenser, a gentleman dwelling in the county of Corke, who is so well known unto you all for his good and commendable parts, (being a man endowed with good knowledge in learning, and not unskilful or without experience in the service of the warres,) as we need not use many words in his behalf. And therefore as we are of opinion that you will favour him for himselfe and of your own accord, so we do pray you that this letter may increase his credit so far forth with you as that he may not fayle to be appointed Sheriffe of the county of Corke, unlesse there be to you knowne some important cause to the contrary. “We are persuaded he will so behave himselfe in this particular as you shall have just cause to allowe of our recommendation, and his good service. And so,” &c.

Note return to page 357 7A minute change has been made in the arrangement of five other plays; A Midsummer-Night's Dream, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and Cymbeline; but the variation is not more than a period of two or three years.

Note return to page 358 8It was published in 1596, and copies of the edition are in the libraries of the Dukes of Bridgwater and Roxburgh. Reed.

Note return to page 359 9From a passage in a tract written by Sir John Harrington, entitled The Metamorphosis of Ajax, 1596, this old play appears to have been printed before that time, probably in the year 1594, when it was entered at Stationers' Hall; though no edition of so early a date has hitherto been discovered. “Read” (says Sir John) “the booke of Taming a Shrew, which hath made a number of us so perfect, that now every one can rule a shrew in our country, save he that hath her.”

Note return to page 360 1For this bookseller Romeo and Juliet was printed in 4to. in 1609, and an edition of Hamlet without date; the latter was printed either in that year or 1607.

Note return to page 361 2“This is the way to kill a wife with kindness.” Taming of the Shrew, Act IV. Sc. I. Heywood's play is mentioned in The Black Booke, 4to. 1604. I am not possessed of the first edition of it, nor is it in any of the great collections of old plays that I have seen.

Note return to page 362 3There is no edition of any of our author's genuine plays extant, prior to 1597, when Romeo and Juliet was published.

Note return to page 363 4“August 5, 1596, a new ballad of Romeo and Juliet,” licensed to Edward White.

Note return to page 364 5In the Shrewsbury Papers, iii. 67, his death is placed on February 24, 1597–8; but this is a mistake.

Note return to page 365 6Andrew Wise paid for a licence to print King Richard II. August 29, 1597; and King Richard III. on October 20, 1597.

Note return to page 366 2“A booke called Delia, containynge diverse sonates, with the Complainte of Rosamonde,” was entered at Stationers' Hall by Simon Waterson, in Feb. 1591–2, and the latter piece is commended by Nashe in a tract entitled Pierce Pennilesse his Supplication to the Divell, published in 1592.

Note return to page 367 3See Romeo and Juliet, Act I. Sc. III.

Note return to page 368 4Thus Mrs. Quickly, in King Henry IV. reminds Falstaff, that he “swore on a parcel-gilt goblet, to marry her, sitting in her dolphin chamber, at a round table, by a sea-coal fire, on Wednesday in Whitsun-week, when the prince broke his head for likening his father to a singing man of Windsor.”

Note return to page 369 5See Measure for Measure, Act. I. Sc. III. and IV.—As You Like It, Act IV. Sc. I. and III.—Othello, Act III. Sc. III.: “I slept the next night well,” &c.

Note return to page 370 5“I had as fair a gold jerkin on that day as any was worn in the Island Voyage, or Cadiz, none dispraised.”

Note return to page 371 6See vol. xv. p. 251.

Note return to page 372 8The circumstance of Hotspur's death in this play, and its being an historical drama, I suppose, induced Meres to denominate The First Part of King Henry IV. a tragedy.

Note return to page 373 9Wit's Treasury, p. 282.

Note return to page 374 1The affairs of this court had previously attracted the publick attention; for in 1594 was published at London, A Letter sent by Amurath the great Turke to Christendom.

Note return to page 375 3See the Chorus to the fifth Act of King Henry V.

Note return to page 376 4“He rather prays, you will be pleased to see “One such, to day, as other plays should be; “Where neither Chorus wafts you o'er the seas,” &c. Prologue to Every Man in his Humour. Fol. 1616.

Note return to page 377 5I had formerly supposed that Every Man in his Humour was Jonson's first dramatick performance; but the discovery of Henslowe's MSS. renders this very doubtful. That register contains a curious account of payments made to Jonson, at various times, for his labours in writing for the theatre. See vol. iii. p. 333.

Note return to page 378 6See an old comedy called The Return from Parnassus: [This piece was not published till 1606; but appears to have been written in 1602,—certainly was produced before the death of Queen Elizabeth, which happened on the 24th of March, 1602–3.] “Why here's our fellow Shakspeare puts them all down; ay and Ben Jonson too. O, that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow; he brought up Horace giving the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakspeare hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit.” The play of Jonson's in which he gave the poets a pill, is the Poetaster, acted in 1601. In that piece some passages of King Henry V. are ridiculed. In what manner Shakspeare put him down, or made him bewray his credit, does not appear. His retaliation, we may be well assured, contained no gross or illiberal abuse; and, perhaps, did not go beyond a ballad or an epigram, which may have perished with things of greater consequence. He has, however, marked his disregard for the calumniator of his fame, by not leaving him any memorial by his Will. —In an apologetical dialogue which Jonson annexed to the Poetaster, he says, he had been provoked for three years (i. e. from 1598 to 1601) on every stage by slanderers; as for the players, he says, “&lblank; It is true, I tax'd them, “And yet but some, and those so sparingly, “As all the rest might have sat still unquestion'd:— “&lblank; What they have done against me “I am not mov'd with. If it gave them meat, “Or got them cloaths, 'tis well; that was their end. “Only, amongst them, I am sorry for “Some better natures, by the rest drawn in “To run in that vile line.” By the words “Some better natures,” there can, I think, be little doubt that Shakspeare was alluded to.

Note return to page 379 7In his Silent Woman, 1609, Act V. Sc. II. Jonson perhaps pointed at Shakspeare, as one whom he viewed with scornful, yet with jealous, eyes: “So they may censure poets and authors, and compare them; Daniel with Spenser, Jonson with t' other youth, and so forth.” Decker, however, might have been meant. Again, in the same play: “You two shall be the chorus behind the arras, and whip out between the acts, and speak.” In the Induction to Bartholomew Fair, which was acted in 1614, two years before the death of our author, three of his plays, and in the piece itself two others, are attempted to be ridiculed. In The Devil's an Ass, acted in 1616, all his historical plays are obliquely censured: “Meer-er. By my faith you are cunning in the chronicles. “Fitz-dot. No, I confess, I ha't from the play-books, and think they are more authentick.” They are again attacked in the Induction to Bartholomew Fair: “An some writer that I know, had but the penning o' this matter, he would ha' made you such a jig-a-jog i' the booths, you should ha' thought an earthquake had been in the fair. But these master-poets, they will ha' their own absurd courses, they will be informed of nothing.” The following passage in Cynthia's Revels, 1601, was, I think, likewise pointed against Shakspeare: “Besides, they would wish our poets would leave to be promoters of other men's jests, and to way-lay all the stale apothegms or old books they can hear of in print or otherwise, to farce their scenes withal:—Again, that feeding their friends with nothing of their own, but what they have twice or thrice cooked, they should not wantonly give out how soon they had dress'd it, nor how many coaches came to carry away the broken meat, besides hobby-horses and foot-cloth nags.” Jonson's plots were all his own invention; our author's chiefly taken from preceding plays or novels. The former employed a year or two in composing a play; the latter probably produced two every year, while he remained in the theatre. The Induction to The Staple of News, which appeared in 1625, not very long after the publication of our author's plays in folio, contains a sneer at a passage in Julius Cæsar: “Know, Cæsar doth not wrong; nor without cause “Will he be satisfied.” which for the purpose of ridicule is quoted unfaithfully; and in the same play may be found an effort, as impotent as that of Voltaire* [Subnote: *“Ah! ma mere, s'écrie-t-il, il y a un gros derrière la tapisserie;—il tire son épée, court au rat, et tue le bon homme Polonius.” (Euvres de Voltaire, t. xv. p. 473, 4to.] , to raise a laugh at Hamlet's exclamation when he kills Polonius. Some other passages which are found in Jonson's works, might be mentioned in support of this observation, but being quoted hereafter for other purposes, they are here omitted. Notwithstanding these proofs, Jonson's malevolence to Shakspeare, and jealousy of his superior reputation, have been doubted by Mr. Pope and others: and much stress has been laid on a passage in his Discoveries, and on the commendatory verses prefixed to the first edition of our author's plays in folio.—The reader, after having perused the following character of Jonson, drawn by Mr. Drummond of Hawthornden, a contemporary, and an intimate acquaintance of his, will not, perhaps, readily believe these posthumous encomiums to have been sincere. “Ben Jonson,” says that writer, “was a great lover and praiser of himself; a contemner and scorner of others; given rather to lose a friend than a jest; jealous of every word and action of those about him, especially after drink, which is one of the elements in which he lived; a dissembler of the parts which reign in him; a bragger of some good that he wanted; thinketh nothing well done, but what either he himself or some of his friends have said or done; he is passionately kind and angry; careless either to gain or keep; vindictive, but if he be well answered, [angry] at himself; interprets best sayings and deeds often to the worst* [Subnote: *His misquoting a line of Julius Cæsar, so as to render it nonsense, at a time when the play was in print, is a strong ilustration of this part of his character. The plea of an unfaithful memory cannot be urged in his defence, for he tells us in his Discoveries, that till he was past forty, he could repeat every thing that he had written.] . He was for any religion, as being versed in both; oppressed with fancy, which over-mastered his reason, a general disease in many poets. His inventions are smooth and easy, but above all, he excelleth in translation.” Drummond's Works, fol. 1711; p. 226. In the year 1619 Jonson went to Scotland, to visit Mr. Drummond, who has left a curious account of a conversation that passed between them, relative to the principal poets of those times. [I have already stated that, in superintending Mr. Malone's work in its passage through the press, I did not feel justified in withdrawing any of his opinions, however erroneous I might think them, unless where I was authorized, either by his papers, or by something which I might have collected from him in conversation. I have, therefore, suffered this note to remain as it was originally written; although, at the same time, I do not hesitate to express my conviction that the charge against Jonson, which it contains, has been satisfactorily answered by Mr. Gifford. With this avowal, to prevent my being misunderstood, I quit a most unpleasing topick. Boswell.]

Note return to page 380 8Of this see a remarkable instance in King Henry IV. Part II. Act I. Sc. I. where Morton in a long speech having informed Northumberland that the Archbishop of York had joined the rebel party, the Earl replies,—“I knew of this before.” The quarto contains the reply, but not a single line of the narrative to which it relates.

Note return to page 381 9See Mr. Steevens's extracts from the books of the Stationers' Company, in a subsequent part of this volume.

Note return to page 382 4See vol. iii. p. 453.

Note return to page 383 5“The country lawyers too jog down apace, “Each with his noverint universi face.” Ravenscroft's Prologue prefixed to Titus Andronicus. Our ancient deeds were written in Latin, and frequently began with the words, Noverint Universi. The form is still retained. Know all men, &c.

Note return to page 384 6See the Dissertation on the Three Parts of King Henry VI. vol. xvii.

Note return to page 385 7The Spanish Tragedy.

Note return to page 386 1“Well, an the fine wits of the Court heare this theyle so whip me,” &c. 4to. 1602.

Note return to page 387 2Mr. Boaden dissents from this opinion; and contends that the chasms which sometimes occur in the story of this drama as it appears in the early quarto, point out that copy as one which was imperfectly taken down during the representation. As an instance of this he points out a passage in Act I. Sc. IV. where Dr. Caius says “Sir Hugh send a you?” and upon that, determines to send him a challenge; in the folio, Mrs. Quickly had before told him that Simple had come with a message from Parson Hugh; but this piece of information being omitted in the first edition, the doctor's anger against the parson is rendered unintelligible. Yet this may have proceeded from the carelessness of the author himself; let the reader judge. Boswell.

Note return to page 388 3“The tragedy which I have undertaken to correct, was in all probability one of his first endeavours on the stage.—Shakspeare (as I hinted) in the apprenticeship of his writing modelled it [the story of Lollius] into that play which is now called by the name of Troilus and Cressida.”—Dryden's Pref. to Troilus and Cressida.

Note return to page 389 4See Mr. Tyrwhitt's note.

Note return to page 390 5Wilson's History of King James, and ann. 1603.

Note return to page 391 1See the verses alluded to, in a note on the extracts from the Stationers' Registers. This writer does not seem to have been very scrupulous about adopting either the thoughts or expressions of his contemporaries; for in his poem are found two lines taken verbatim from Marston's Insatiate Countess, printed four years before Myrrha, the Mother of Adonis, &c.: “Night, like a masque, was enter'd heaven's great hall, “With thousand torches ushering the way.” It appears from Ben Jonson's Silent Woman, that W. Barksted was an actor, and was employed in the theatre where our author's plays were represented. He might therefore have performed a part in Measure for Measure, or have seen the copy before it was printed.

Note return to page 392 2Bacon's Works, vol. iv. p. 440.

Note return to page 393 3King James on his accession to the throne studiously marked his disregard for Elizabeth by the favour which he showed to Lord Southampton, and to every other person who had been disgraced by her. Of this Shakspeare could not be ignorant.

Note return to page 394 4After having enumerated some of the blessings which were to ensue from the birth of Elizabeth, and celebrated her majesty's various virtues, the poet thus proceeds: “Cran. In her days every man shall eat in safety “Under his own vine, what he plants, and sing “The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours. “God shall be truly known; and those about her “From her shall read the perfect ways of honour, “And by those claim their greatness, not by blood. “[Nor shall this peace sleep with her; but as when “The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phœnix, “Her ashes new-create another heir, “As great in admiration as herself; “So shall she leave her blessedness to one, &c. “&lblank; He shall flourish, “And, like a mountain cedar, reach his branches “To all the plains about him:—our children's children “Shall see this, and bless heaven. “King. Thou speakest wonders.] “Cran. She shall be, to the happiness of England, “An aged princess; many days shall see her, “And yet no day without a deed to crown it. “Would I had known no more! but she must die, “She must, the saints must have her; yet a virgin,” &c. The lines between crotchets are those supposed to have been inserted by the author after the accession of King James.

Note return to page 395 5Camden, 27. Melvil, 49.

Note return to page 396 6The author of Shakspeare Illustrated. [Mrs. Lennox.]

Note return to page 397 7Thus, Henry IV. Part I. was called Hotspur; Henry IV. Part II. or The Merry Wives of Windsor, was exhibited under the name of Sir John Falstaff; Much Ado about Nothing was new-named Benedick and Beatrix; and Julius Cæsar seems to have been represented under the title of Cæsar's Tragedy.

Note return to page 398 8The Prince Palatine was not present at the representation of King Henry VIII. on the 30th of June O. S. when the Globe playhouse was burnt down, having left England some time before. But the play might have been revived for his entertainment in the beginning of the year 1613; and might have been occasionally represented afterwards.

Note return to page 399 9In support of this conjecture it may be observed, that Ben Jonson has in many places endeavoured to ridicule our author for representing battles on the stage. So, in his prologue to Every Man in his Humour: “&lblank; Yet ours, for want, hath not so lov'd the stage, “As he dare serve the ill customs of the age; “Or purchase your delight at such a rate, “As, for it, he himself must justly hate; “To make, &c. “&lblank; or with three rusty swords, “And help of some few foot-and-half-foot words, “Fight over York and Lancaster's long jars, “And in the trying house bring wounds to scars.” Again, in his Silent Woman, Act IV. Sc. IV.: “Nay, I would sit out a play, that were nothing but fights at sea, drum, trumpet, and target.” We are told in the memoirs of Ben Jonson's life, that he went to France in the year 1613. But at the time of the revival of King Henry VIII. he either had not left England, or was then returned; for he was a spectator of the fire which happened at the Globe theatre during the representation of that piece. [See the next note.] It may, perhaps, seem extraordinary, that he should have presumed to prefix this covert censure of Shakspeare to one of his own plays. But he appears to have eagerly embraced every opportunity of depreciating him. This occasional prologue (whoever was the writer of it) confirms the tradition handed down by Rowe, that our author retired from the stage some years before his death. Had he been at that time joined with Heminge and Burbage in the management of the Globe theatre, he scarcely would have suffered the lines above alluded to, to have been spoken. In Lord Harrington's account of the money disbursed for the plays that were exhibited by his majesty's servants in the year 1613, before the Elector Palatine, all the payments are said to have been made to “John Heminge, for himself and the rest of his fellows;” from which we may conclude that he was principal manager. A correspondent, however, of Sir Thomas Puckering's (as I learn from Mr. Tyrwhitt) in a MS. letter, preserved in the Museum, and dated in the year 1613, calls the company at the Globe, “Bourbage's company.”—Shakspeare's name stands before either of these, in the licence granted by King James: and had he not left London before that time, the players at the Globe theatre, I imagine, would rather have been entitled, his company. —The burlesque parody on the account of Falstaff's death, which is contained in Fletcher's comedy of The Captain, acted in 1613, and the ridicule of Hamlet's celebrated soliloquy, and of Ophelia's death, in his Scornful Lady, which was represented about the same time, confirm the tradition that our author had then retired from the stage, careless of the fate of his writings, inattentive to the illiberal attacks of his contemporaries, and negligent alike of present and posthumous fame. Since the above note was written, I have seen the mortgage which is printed in a subsequent page, and was executed by Shakspeare, in March, 1612–13. From this deed we find that he was in London in that year; he might, however, have parted with his property in the theatre before. [In the notes to the Epilogue to Henry VIII. I have endeavoured to show that in those lines no satire was directed against Shakspeare. Boswell.]

Note return to page 400 1The Globe theatre (as I learn from the MSS. of Mr. Oldys) was thatched with reeds, and had an open area in its center. This area we may suppose to have been filled by the lowest part of the audience, whom Shakspeare calls the groundlings.—Chambers are not, like other guns, pointed horizontally, but are discharged as they stand erect on their breeches. The accident may, therefore, be easily accounted for. If these pieces were let off behind the scenes, the paper or wadding with which their charges were confined, would reach the thatch on the inside: or if fixed without the walls, it might have been carried by the wind to the top of the roof. This accident is alluded to, in the following lines of Ben Jonson's Execration upon Vulcan, from which it appears, that he was at the Globe playhouse when it was burnt; a circumstance which in some measure strengthens the conjecture that he was employed on the revival of King Henry VIII. for this was not the theatre at which his pieces were usually represented: “Well fare the wise men yet on the Bank-side, “My friends, the watermen! they could provide “Against thy fury, when, to serve their needs, “They made a Vulcan of a sheaf of reeds; “Whom they durst handle in their holy-day coats, “And safely trust to dress, not burn, their boats. “But O those reeds! thy mere disdain of them “Made thee beget that cruel stratagem, “(Which some are pleas'd to style but thy mad prank), “Against the Globe, the glory of the Bank: “Which, though it were the fort of the whole parish, “Flank'd with a ditch, and forc'd out of a marish, “I saw, with two poor chambers taken in, “And raz'd; ere thought could urge this might have been. “See the world's ruins! nothing but the piles “Left, and wit since to cover it with tiles. “The breth'ren, they straight nois'd it out for news, “'Twas verily some relick of the stews, “And this a sparkle of that fire let loose, “That was lock'd up in the Winchestrian goose, “Bred on the Bank in time of popery, “When Venus there maintain'd her mystery. “But others fell, with that conceit, by the ears, “And cried it was a threat'ning to the bears, “And that accursed ground, the Paris-garden,” &c.

Note return to page 401 1Mr. Malone formerly ascribed this play to the year 1601. I know not upon what grounds he altered his opinion. I have inadvertently preserved the old date in the Preliminary Remarks to Henry VII. which I request the reader will correct as an erratum. Boswell.

Note return to page 402 2“I may quarter, coz,” says Slender, in The Merry Wives of Windsor. “You may (replies Justice Shallow), by marrying.”

Note return to page 403 3MS. Vertue.

Note return to page 404 4Mr. Malone never expresses himself at random. I therefore lament deeply that I have not been able to discover upon what evidence he knew this important and decisive fact. Boswell.

Note return to page 405 5Shakspeare has copied one of the passages in this old play. This he might have done, though we should suppose it not to have been published till after his King Lear was written and acted; for the old play had been in possession of the stage for many years before 1605; and without doubt he had often seen it exhibited; nor could he have found any difficulty in procuring a manuscript copy of it, when he sat down to write his own tragedy on the same subject. I suspect, however, the old play had been published in 1594.

Note return to page 406 6In Othello, written a few years before this tragedy, the Moor, distracted with jealousy, assigns the same office to Emilia: “&lblank; you, mistress, “That have the office opposite to St. Peter, “And keep the gate of hell &lblank;.”

Note return to page 407 7The Audit-book of the College of Eton is a decisive authority with respect to the price of wheat in any year, compared with any other year, precedent or subsequent. But it must not be inferred, from the price above given, that this was the current or medium price of wheat in that year; for it is the rule, at Eton, to set down the highest price of the best wheat and malt, in the market at Windsor, at two periods of the year, which is ascertained in the most unexceptionable manner: and the rents, for the current year, are regulated by this means; the tenants of the College having it in their option either to pay their rents in wheat and malt in kind, or in money, at the said market prices. But as these are the prices of the best wheat and malt, and the bushel at Windsor contains nine gallons, in order to find out the true state of the middle price of wheat or malt throughout the kingdom, in any given year (as the author of the valuable tracts on the corn laws, 8vo. 1765, has observed), one ninth must be subducted for the difference of the Windsor bushel above the statute measure; and then one ninth more from the remainder, for the reasons which he assigns: and if this process be observed, it will be found that the middle price of wheat in England, in 1606, was one pound six shillings, and of malt, about fifteen shillings. In those counties where there was a great abundance of grain, as Hampshire, Suffolk, and Norfolk, it was probably still lower; for Sir Charles Cornwallis, who went to Spain as Ambassador, in May 1605, in or about September in that year, wrote a letter to Lord Southampton, proposing to that nobleman to send from England 2000 quarters of wheat, and 1500 quarters of barley, to Valadolid, where there was then a great dearth; and that the profit resulting from this speculation, which, he says, would be at least 500l. should be divided between them. This scheme, he adds, may be advantageously adopted, not only then, but for some years to come. By the statute, I James I. c. 25, corn was not allowed to be exported, except when the price of wheat did not exceed twenty-six shillings and eight pence the quarter, and that of barley and malt did not exceed that of fourteen shillings. By a letter in Winwood's Memorials, we find that a quantity of corn had been exported in the early part of the year 1616, from Lynn in Norfolk.

Note return to page 408 8Winwood's Memorials, ii. 205.

Note return to page 409 9The Passions of the Minde in Generalle, by Thomas Wright, 4to. 1604.

Note return to page 410 2If the writer had any ground for this assertion, why was it not stated? It is extremely improbable that Shakspeare should have left London at this period. In 1599 his King Henry V. was produced, and without doubt acted with great applause.

Note return to page 411 4See vol. xi. p. 281.

Note return to page 412 5Ab ejusdem collegii alumnis (qui et cothurno tragico et socco comico principes semper habebantur) Vertumnus, comœdia faceta, ad principes exhilarandos exhibetur. Rex Platonicus, p. 78. Arcadiam restauratam Isiacorum Arcadum lectissimi cecinerunt, unoque opere, principum omniumque spectantium animos immensa et ultra fidem affecerunt voluptate; simulque patrios ludiones, etsi exercitatissimos, quantum intersit inter scenam mercenariam et eruditam docuerunt. Ib. p. 228. See also, The Return from Parnassus (Act IV. Sc. III.), which was acted publickly at St. John's College in Cambridge.

Note return to page 413 6Macbeth, Act IV. Sc. I. II.

Note return to page 414 7Mr. Upton was of opinion that this masque preceded Macbeth. But the only ground which he states for this conjecture, is, “that Jonson's pride would not suffer him to borrow from Shakspeare, though he stole from the ancients.”

Note return to page 415 8In a former note on this tragedy, I have said that the original edition contains only the two fist words of the song in the fourth Act, beginning—“Black spirits,” &c.; but have lately discovered the entire stanza in an unpublished dramatick piece, viz. “A Tragi-Coomodie called The Witch; long since acted by his Ma.ties Servants at the Black Friers; written by Tho. Middleton.” The song is there called—“A charme-song, about a vessell.” The other song, omitted in the fifth Scene of the third Act of Macbeth, together with the imperfect couplet there, may likewise be found, as follows, in Middleton's performance.—The Hecate of Shakspeare says: “I am for the air,” &c. The Hecate of Middleton (who like the former is summoned away by aerial spirits) has the same declaration in almost the same words: “I am for aloft,” &c. “Song.] Come away, come away: [in the air.] “Heccat, Heccat, come away. [in the air.] “Hec. I come, I come, I come,   “With all the speed I may,   “With all the speed I may. “Wher's Stadlin? “Heere.] in the aire. “Wher's Puckle? “Heere.] in the aire. “And Hoppo too, and Hellwaine too. [in the aire.] “We lack but you, we lack but you: [in the aire.] “Come away, make up the count. [in the aire.] “Hec. I will but 'noynt, and then I mount. “A spirit like a cat descends. There's one comes down to fetch his dues, [above.] A kisse, a coll, a sip of blood: [above.] And why thou staist so long [above.]   “I muse, I muse, [above.] “Since the air's so sweet and good. [above.] “Hec. Oh, art thou come?     “What newes, what newes? “All goes still to our delight, [above.]   “Either come, or els [above.]       “Refuse, refuse. [above.] “Hec.   Now I am furnish'd for the flight. “Fire.] Hark, hark, the catt sings a brave treble in her owne language. “Hec. going up.]       Now I goe, now I flie,     “Malkin, my sweete spirit, and I. “Oh what a daintie pleasure 'tis,     “To ride in the aire,     “When the moone shines faire, “And sing, and daunce, and toy and kiss!   “Over woods, high rocks and mountains,   “Over seas, our mistris' fountains,   “Over steepe towres and turrets,   “We fly by night 'mongst troopes of spirits.   “No ring of bells to our eares sounds,   “No howles of woolves, no yelpes of hounds;   “No, not the noyse of waters'-breache,   “Or cannons' throat, our height can reache.     “No ring of bells, &c.] above. “Fire.] Well, mother, I thank your kindness: you must be gombolling i' th' aire, and leave me to walk here, like a foole and a mortall. Exit. Finis Actus Tercii.” This Fire-stone, who occasionally interposes in the course of the dialogue, is called, in the List of Persons Represented,— “The Clowne and Heccat's son.” Again, the Heccate of Shaskpeare says to her sisters: “I'll charm the air to give a sound, “While you perform your antique round, &c. “[Musick. The Witches dance and vanish.” The Hecate of Middleton says on a similar occasion: “Come, my sweete sisters, let the aire strike our tune, “Whilst we shew reverence to yond peeping moone. [“Here they dance, and exeunt.” In this play, the motives which incline the Witches to mischief, their manners, the contents of their cauldron, &c. seem to have more than accidental resemblance to the same particulars in Macbeth. The hags of Middleton, like the weird sisters of Shakspeare, destroy cattle because they have been refused provisions at farm-houses. The owl and the cat (Gray Malkin) give them notice when it is time to proceed on their several expeditions. Thus Shakspeare's Witch: “Harper cries;—'tis time, 'tis time.” Thus too the Hecate of Middleton: “Hec.] Heard you the owle yet? “Stad.] Briefely in the copps. “Hec.] 'Tis high time for us then.” The Hecate of Shakspeare, addressing her sisters, observes, that Macbeth is but “a wayward son, who loves for his own ends, not for them.” The Hecate of Middleton has the same observation, when the youth who has been consulting her, retires: “I know he loves me not, nor there's no hope on't.” Instead of the “grease that's sweaten from the murderer's gibbet,” and the “finger of birth-strangled babe,” the Witches of Middleton employ “the gristle of a man that hangs after sunset,” (i. e. of a murderer, for all other criminals were anciently cut down before evening), and the “fat of an unbaptized child.” They likewise boast of the power to raise tempests that shall blow down trees, overthrow buildings, and occasion shipwreck; and, more particularly, that they can “make miles of woods walk.” Here too the Grecian Hecate is degraded into a presiding witch, and exercised in superstitions peculiar to our own country. So much for the scenes of enchantment; but even other parts of Middleton's play coincide more than once with that of Shakspeare. Lady Macbeth says, in Art II.: “&lblank; the surfeited grooms “Do mock their charge with snores. I have drugg'd their possets.” So too, Francisca, in the piece of Middleton: “&lblank; they're now all at rest, “And Gaspar there and all:—List!—fast asleepe; “He cryes it hither.—I must disease you strait, sir: “For the maide-servants, and the girles o' th' house, “I spic'd them lately with a drowsie posset, “They will not hear in haste.” And Francisca, like Lady Macbeth, is watching late at night to encourage the perpetration of a murder. The expression which Shakspeare has put into the mouth of Macbeth, when he is sufficiently recollected to perceive that the dagger and the blood on it, were the creation of his own fancy,— “There's no such thing,”—is likewise appropriated to Francisca, when she undeceives her brother, whose imagination had been equally abused. From the instances already produced, perhaps the reader would allow, that if Middleton's piece preceded Shakspeare's, the originality of the magick introduced by the latter, might be fairly questioned; for our author (who as actor, and manager, had access to unpublished dramatick performances) has so often condescended to receive hints from his contemporaries, that our suspicion of his having been a copyist in the present instance, might not be without foundation. Nay, perhaps, a time may arrive, in which it will become evident from books and manuscripts yet undiscovered and unexamined, that Shakspeare never attempted a play on any argument, till the effect of the same story, or at least the ruling incidents in it, had been already tried on the stage, and familiarized to his audience. Let it be remembered, in support of this conjecture, that dramatick pieces on the following subjects,—viz. King John, King Richard II. and III. King Henry IV. and V. King Henry VIII. King Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, Measure for Measure, The Merchant of Venice, The Taming of a Shrew, and The Comedy of Errors,—had appeared before those of Shakspeare, and that he has taken somewhat from all of them that we have hitherto seen. I must observe at the same time, that Middleton, in his other dramas, is found to have borrowed little from the sentiments, and nothing from the fables of his predecessors. He is known to have written in concert with Jonson, Fletcher, Massinger, and Rowley; but appears to have been unacquainted, or at least unconnected, with Shakspeare. It is true that the date of The Witch cannot be ascertained. The author, however, in his dedication (“to the truelie-worthie and generously-affected Thomas Holmes, Esquire,”) observes, that he “recovered this ignorant ill-fated labour of his (from the playhouse, I suppose), not without much difficultie. Witches (continues he) are, ipso facto, by the law condemn'd, and that onely, I thincke, hath made her lie so long in an imprison'd obscuritie.” It is probable, therefore, from these words, as well as from the title-page, that the play was written long* [Subnote: *That dramatick pieces were sometimes written long before they were printed, may be proved from the example of Marlowe's Rich Jew of Malta, which was entered on the books of the Stationers' Company in the year 1594, but was not published till 1633, as we learn from the preface to it written by Heywood. It appears likewise from the same registers, that several plays were written, that were never published at all. Steevens.] before the dedication, which seems to have been added soon after the year 1603, when the act of King James against witches passed into a law. If it be objected, that The Witch appears from this title-page to have been acted only by his majesty's servants, let it be remembered that these were the very players who had been before in the service of the Queen; but Middleton, dedicating his work in the time of James, speaks of them only as dependants on the reigning prince. Here too it may be remarked, that the first dramatick piece in which Middleton is known to have had a hand, viz. The Old Law, was acted in 1599; so that The Witch might have been composed, if not performed at an earlier period* [Subnote: *The spelling in the MS. is sometimes more antiquated than any to be met with in the printed copies of Shakspeare, as the following instances may prove:—Byn for been—sollempnely for solemnly—dampnation for damnation—quight for quite—grizzle for gristle—doa for doe—olyff for olive, &c. Steevens.] than the accession of James to the crown; for the belief of witchcraft was sufficiently popular in the preceding reigns. The piece in question might likewise have been neglected through the caprice of players, or retarded till it could be known that James would permit such representations; (for on his arrival here, both authors and actors who should have ventured to bring the midnight mirth and jollity of witches on the stage, would probably have been indicted as favourers of magick and enchantment:) or, it might have shrunk into obscurity after the appearance of Macbeth; or perhaps was forbidden by the command of the king. The witches of Shakspeare (exclusive of the flattering circumstance to which their prophecy alludes) are solemn in their operations, and therefore behaved in conformity to his majesty's own opinions. On the contrary, the hags of Middleton are ludicrous in their conduct, and lessen, by ridiculous combinations of images, the solemnity of that magick in which our scepter'd persecutor of old women most reverently and potently believed. The conclusion to Middleton's dedication, has likewise a degree of singularity that deserves notice,—“For your sake alone, she hath thus conjur'd herself abroad; and bears no other charmes about her, but what may tend to your recreation; nor no other spell, but to possess you with a beleif, that as she, so he, that first taught her to enchant, will alwaies be,” &c.—“He that taught her to enchant,” would have sufficiently expressed the obvious meaning of the writer, without aid from the word first, which seems to imply a covert censure on some person who had engaged his Hecate in a secondary course of witchcraft. The reader must have inferred from the specimen of incantation already given, that this MS. play (which was purchased by Major Pearson out of the collection of Benjamin Griffin, the player, and is in all probability the presentation copy) had indubitably passed through the hands of Sir William D'Avenant; for almost all the additions which he pretends to have made to the scenes of witchcraft in Macbeth (together with the names of the supplemental agents) are adopted from Middleton. It was not the interest, therefore, of Sir William, that this piece should ever appear in print: but time that makes more important discoveries, has likewise brought his petty plagiarism to light* [Subnote: *Sir William D'Avenant might likewise have formed his play of Albovine King of Lombardy on some of the tragick scenes in this unpublished piece by Middleton. Yet the chief circumstances on which they are both founded, occur in the fourth volume of the Histoires Tragiques, &c. par Francois de Belle-forest, 1580, p. 297, and at the beginning of Machiavel's Florentine History. Steevens.] . I should remark, that Sir W. D. has corrupted several words as well as proper names in the songs, &c. but it were needless to particularize his mistakes, as this entire tragi-comedy will hereafter be published for the satisfaction of the curious and intelligent readers of Shakspeare. Steevens.

Note return to page 416 9Illustrations of British Hist. iii. 176.

Note return to page 417 1MS. Stanhope in Bib. Bodl.

Note return to page 418 2N. Field's Amends for Ladies is said to have been acted by the Prince's servants, and Lady Elizabeth at Blackfriars. It appears before 1682. (See Preface to two other plays.) So it appears that these companies hired that house. Thus this shows it could not be then in possession of the King's Servants.

Note return to page 419 3The persons represented in this play (which is in my possession) are—Duke; Fidelio; Aspero; Hortensio; Borgias; Picentio; Count Gismond; Fernese; Bentivoglio; Cosmo; Julio; Captain; Lieutenant; Ancient; two Doctors; an Ambassador; Victoria; Eleanor; Isabel; Lesbia.—Scene, Florence.

Note return to page 420 4See vol. xi. p. 68, n. 9.

Note return to page 421 5“Nay, if you be an undertaker, I am for you.” See Twelfth-Night, Act IV. Sc. III. and the note there.

Note return to page 422 6Comm. Journ. vol. i. p. 456, 457, 470.

Note return to page 423 7The comedies particularly alluded to, are, A Midsummer-Night's Dream, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, and The Two Gentlemen of Verona.

Note return to page 424 8See the first note on Twelfth-Night, Act I. Sc. I.

Note return to page 425 1MSS. Harl. 7008.

Note return to page 426 2See a note on Julius Cæsar, Act I. Sc. I. in which they are enumerated.

Note return to page 427 3There is an edition without date, which probably was the first. This play, as appears by the title-page, was privately acted by the students of Trinity College in Oxford. In the running title it is called The Tragedy of Julius Cæsar; perhaps the better to impose it on the publick for the performance of Shakspeare.

Note return to page 428 4“Nor fire nor cank'ring age, as Naso said “Of his, thy wit-fraught book shall once invade: “Nor shall I e'er believe or think thee dead, “(Though miss'd) untill our bankrout stage be sped “(Impossible!) with some new strain t'outdo, “Passions of Juliet and her Romeo; “Or till I hear a scene more nobly take “Than when thy half-sword parlying Romans spake.” Verses by L. Digges, prefixed to the first edition of our author's plays, in 1623.

Note return to page 429 5The following passages in Antony and Cleopatra, (and others of the same kind may perhaps be found,) seem to me to discover such a knowledge of the appropriated characters of the persons exhibited in Julius Cæsar, and of the events there dilated and enlarged upon, as Shakspeare would necessarily have acquired from having previously written a play on that subject: “Pompey. &lblank; I do not know “Wherefore my father should revengers want, “Having a son and friends, since Julius Cæsar, “Who at Philippi the good Brutus ghosted, “There saw you labouring for him. What was't, “That mov'd pale Cassius to conspire? And what “Made thee, all-honour'd, honest, Roman Brutus, “With the arm'd rest, courtiers o beauteous freedom, “To drench the capitol, but that they would “Have one man but a man?” So, in another place: “When Antony found Julius Cæsar dead, “He cry'd almost to roaring; and he wept, “When at Philippi he found Brutus slain.” Again: “Ant. He at Philippi kept “His sword ev'n like a dancer, while I struck “The lean and wrinkled Cassius; and 'twas I “That the mad Brutus ended.”

Note return to page 430 6“New titles warrant not a play for new, “The subject being old; and 'tis as true, “Fresh and neat matter may with ease be fram'd “Out of their stories that have oft been nam'd “With glory on the stage. What borrows he “From him that wrought old Priam's tragedy, “That writes his love for Hecuba? Sure to tell “Of Cæsar's amorous heats, and how he fell “In the Capitol, can never be the same “To the judicious.” Prologue to the False One.

Note return to page 431 7This tragedy (as I learn from a MS. of Mr. Oldys) was formerly in the possession of John Warburton, Esq. Somerset Herald, and since in the library of the Marquis of Lansdown. It had no author's name to it, when it was licensed, but was afterwards ascribed to George Chapman, whose name is erased by another hand, and that of Shakspeare inserted.

Note return to page 432 7Additions to Langbaine's Account of Dramatick Poets, MS.

Note return to page 433 8See p. 434, and p. 447.

Note return to page 434 1I have some doubts concerning the concluding remark on the date of this play. The tree which is fit for breeding silkworms, is the white mulberry, of which great numbers were imported into England in the year 1609: but perhaps we had the other species, which produces the best fruit, before that time. If that was the case, my hypothesis concerning the time when our poet planted the celebrated mulberry tree, may be controverted. Valeat quantum valere possit.

Note return to page 435 2Thus, Hamlet was sometimes called Hamlet's Revenge, sometimes The History of Hamlet; the Merchant of Venice was sometimes called The Jew of Venice, &c.

Note return to page 436 3Historick Doubts.

Note return to page 437 4See this hypothesis of Mr. Walpole controverted in the Preliminary Remarks to The Winter's Tale, vol. xiv. Boswell.

Note return to page 438 4MS. of the late Mr. Malone.

Note return to page 439 5See p. 451, article, Cymbeline.

Note return to page 440 6It was formerly an established custom to have plays represented at court in the Christmas holydays, and particularly on Twelfth Night. Two of Lyly's comedies (Alexander and Campaspe, 1584, and Mydas, 1592), are said in their title-pages, to have been “played befoore the queenes majestie on Twelfe-day at night;” and several of Ben Jonson's masques were presented at Whitehall, on the same festival. Our author's Love's Labour's Lost was exhibited before Queen Elizabeth in the Christmas holydays; and his King Lear was acted before King James on St. Stephen's night: the night after Christmas-day.

Note return to page 441 7See this topick fully discussed in the Dissertation at the end of vol. xv.

Note return to page 442 8“Let greatness of her glassy scepters vaunt,   “Not scepters, no but reeds, soon bruis'd, soon broken, “And let this worldly pomp our wits enchant,   “All fades, and scarcely leaves behind a token. “Those golden palaces, those gorgeous halls,   “With furniture superfluously fair, “Those stately courts, those sky encountring walls,   “Evanish all like vapours in the air.” Darius, Act III. edit. 1603. “&lblank; These our actors, “As I foretold you, were all spirits, and “Are melted into air, into thin air; “And, like the baseless fabrick of this vision, “The cloud-capt tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces, “The solemn temples, the great globe itself, “Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, “And, like this unsubstantial pageant faded, “Leave not a rack behind.” Tempest, Act IV. Sc. I.

Note return to page 443 9See note on Julius Cæsar, Act I. Sc. I.

Note return to page 444 1Observations on The Tempest, p. 67. Mr. Holt imagined, that Lord Essex was united to Lady Frances Howard in 1610; but he was mistaken: for their union did not take place till the next year.

Note return to page 445 2Jan. 5, 1606–7. The Earl continued abroad four years from that time; so that he did not cohabit with his wife till 1611.

Note return to page 446 3In the list of plays enumerated (p. 438), by Mr. Malone as unpublished, he might have excepted two more of them which still remain in manuscript, viz. The Queen of Corsica and the Bugbears, both also in the collection of the Marquis of Lansdowne. The following is the list of plays formerly in the possession of Mr. Warburton, copied from his MS. in the collection of the same nobleman: “The Honourable Loves, by Will. Rowley. “Henry the First, by Will. Shakespear and Robert Davenport. “The Fair Favourite. “Minerva's Sacrifice. Phill. Massinger. “Duke Humphrey. Will. Shakespear. “Citty Shuffler. “Sir John Suckling's Workes. “Nothing impossible to Love. T. P. Sir Rob. le Greece. “The Forc'd Lady. T. Phill. Massinger. “The Governor. T. Sir Corn. Formido. “The Lovers of Loodgate. “The Flying Voice, by R. Wood. “The Mayden's Holaday, by Christ. Marlowe. “The Puritan Maid, the Modest Wife, and the Wanton Widow, by Tho. Middleton. “The London Merchant, a Comedy, by Jo. Ford. “The King of Swedland* [Subnote: *Query, if not Dekker's King of Swethland, entered on the Stationer's books, June 29, 1660.] . “Love hath found out his Eyes, by Tho. Jorden. “Antonio and Vallia, by Phill. Massinger. “The Duchess of Fernandina. T. Henry Glapthorne. “Jocondo and Astolso, by Tho. Decker. “St. George for England, by Will. Smithe. “The Parliament of Love, by Wm. Rowley. “The Widow's Prise. C. Will. Sampson. “The Inconstant Lady. Wm. Wilson. “The Woman's Plott. Phill. Massinger. “The Crafty Marshall. C. Shack. Marmion. “An Interlude, by Ra. Wood. (worth nothing.) “The Tyrant, a Tragedy, by Phill. Massinger. “The Nonesuch, a C. Wm. Rowley. “The Royal Combate. C. By Jo. Forde. “Philenzo and Hippolito. C. Phill. Massinger. “Beauty in a Trance, Mr. Jo. Forde. “The Judge. C. By Phill. Massinger. “A good Beginning may have a good End, by Jo. Forde. “Fast and welcome, by Phill. Massinger. “Believe as you list. C. By Phill. Massinger. “Hist. of Jobe, by Robt. Green. “The Vestall, a Tragedy, by H. Glapthorne. “Yorkshire Gentlewoman and her Sons. “The Honour of Women. C. by P. Massinger. “The Noble Choice. T. C. P. Massinger. “A Mask. R. Govell. “Second Maiden's Tragedy. George Chapman. “The Great Man. “The Spanish Puechas. C. “The Queen of Corsica. T. By F. Jaques. “The Tragedy of Jobe. (Good.) “The Nobleman. T. C. Cyrill Tourneur. “A Play by Will. Shakspeare. “Bugbears. C. Jo. Geffrey. “Orpheus. C. “'Tis good sleeping in a whole Skin. W. Wager. “Faery Queen. “After I had been many years collecting these MS. plays, through my own carelessness and the ignorance of my servant in whose hands I had lodged them, they were unluckily burn'd, or put under pye-bottoms, excepting the three which follow: “Second Maiden's Tragedy. “Bugbears. “Queen of Corsica. J. Warburton.” Since the foregoing elaborate, and, for the most part, satisfactory result of a laborious enquiry was last published [in 1790], the order of the plays of Shakspeare, as settled by Mr. Malone, has been controverted by Mr. Chalmers, who has formed a new arrangement; and in support of it has produced his evidence and assigned his reasons. To these (being too long to be here inserted) the reader is referred for farther satisfaction. On a subject which both parties admit does not pretend to the certainties of demonstration, a difference of opinion may be expected. Time, research, and accident, may yet bring to light evidence to confirm or confute either party's statement. The arrangement of Mr. Malone being already before the reader it will be necessary to add that of Mr. Chalmers; and that a judgment may be formed which claims the preference, both lists are subjoined. The first is by Mr. Chalmers, the second by Mr. Malone. 1. The Comedy of Errors 1591–1593 2. Love's Labour's Lost 1592–1594 3. Romeo and Juliet 1592–1595 4. Henry VI. the First Part 1593–1589 5. Henry VI. the Second Part 1595–1591 6. Henry VI. the Third Part 1595–1591 7. The Two Gentlemen of Verona 1595–1595 8. Richard III 1595–1597 9. Richard II 1596–1597 10. The Merry Wives of Windsor 1596–1601 11. Henry IV. the First Part 1596–1597 12. Henry IV. the Second Part 1597–1598 13. Henry V 1597–1599 14. The Merchant of Venice 1597–1598 15. Hamlet 1597–1596 16. King John 1598–1596 17. A Midsummer-Night's Dream 1598–1592 18. The Taming of the Shrew. 1598–1594 19. All's Well That Ends Well 1599–1598 20. Much Ado About Nothing 1599–1600 21. As You Like It 1599–1600 22. Troilus and Cressida 1600–1602 23. Timon of Athens 1601–1609 24. The Winter's Tale. 1601–1604 25. Measure for Measure 1604–1603 26. Lear 1605–1605 27. Cymbeline 1606–1605 28. Macbeth. 1606–1606 29. Julius Cæsar 1607–1607 30. Antony and Cleopatra 1608–1608 31. Coriolanus 1609–1610 32. The Tempest 1613–1612 33. The Twelfth-Night 1613–1614 34. Henry VIII. 1613–1601 35. Othello 1614–1611 See Supplemental Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare Papers. By George Chalmers, F. R. S. A. S. p. 266. Reed. Dr. Drake, in his work entitled Shakspeare and the Times, has proposed an arrangement in some instances different from both Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Malone. The list taken from Mr. Malone is that which appeared in 1790. I have allowed it to remain, that the reader may have it in his power to compare it with his subsequent opinions. Boswell.

Note return to page 447 1Barnaby Barnes, whose birth was more respectable than his poetry, was a younger son of Dr. Richard Barnes, Bishop of Durham. He was bred at Brazen-nose College in Oxford, of which he became a member in 1586. He published a Collection of Poems, entitled Parthenophil and Parthenope, among which is the sonnet above-mentioned, which is a very poor thing. He afterwards (1607) produced a tragedy called The Devil's Charter.

Note return to page 448 2The Unfortunate Traveller, or the Life of Jacke Wilton, 4to. 1594. But, at the conclusion of the piece, we find “June 27, 1593.”

Note return to page 449 3Markham's sonnet to Lord Southampton, prefixed to The Most Honorable Tragedie of Sir Richard Grenvile, Knight, 16mo. 1595, begins thus: “O thou, the laurel of the Muses hill, “Whose eyes doth crown the most victorious pen.”

Note return to page 450 4In a manuscript volume of poems, which I lately purchased out of a bookseller's catalogue, written apparently about the time of the Restoration, I find the following article; valeat quantum valere potest: “Shakespeare upon the King. “Crownes have their compasse, length of dayes their date, “Triumphes their tombs, felicity her fate: “Of more then earth cann earth make none partaker “But knowledge makes the king most like his Maker.” The same miscellany contains a copy of verses by his Majesty himself, which, perhaps, the reader may think contains more internal evidence of being the genuine production of the royal poet than can be found for attributing those lines, which I have quoted, to Shakspeare. “King James upon the Death of Queen Anne. “Thee to invite the greate God sent his starre “Whose friends and nearest kin good princes are “For though they run the race of men and dye “Death seems but to refine their Majestie “So did my Queene from hence her court remoove “And leave the earth to bee enthroned above “Then she is changed not dead. No good prince dyes “But only lyke the sun doth set to rise.” Whatever may have been the foibles of this monarch, we cannot but contemplate him with respect, as the patron of Shakspeare; and, therefore, I shall make no apology for adding another specimen of his poetry, which appears to me to possess considerable merit. It was transcribed, by Mr. Malone, from a MS. in the Rawlinson collection, Bodleian Library: “A Poem made by King James upon the Voyage of his sonne Charles and the Marquisse Buckingham into Spayne March 1622.” [In order to understand the names made use of in these verses, it should be recollected that the Prince and Buckingham travelled in disguise, under the borrowed names of Thomas and John Smith. Sir H. Wotton's Life and Death of G. Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.] “What sudden change hath dark't of late “The glory of th' Arcadian state? “The fleecy flockes refuse to feede, “The lambes to play, the ewes to breede:   “The altars smoke, the offringes burne   “Till Jack and Tom doe safe return. “The spring neglects her course to keepe “The ayre with mightie stormes doth weep* [Subnote: *This is not a poetical fiction. There was a violent storm at this time, by which the Prince was shipwrecked, and forced to land at St. Andrews. See Walter's Poems. Malone.] “The prety birdes disdaine to singe “The meades to smell the woods to springe   “The mountaines droppe, the fountaynes mourne   “Till Jack and Tom doe safe returne. “What may it bee that moves this woe? “Whose want affectes Arcadia soe? “The hope of Greece, the proppe of arts “Was princely Jack, the joy of harts   “And Tom was to our royal Pan   “The chiefest swayne, and truest man. “The lofty trees of Menalus “Did shake with winde from Hesperus: “Whose sweete delicious ayre did fly “Through all the boundes of Arcadie   “Which moved a vayne in Jack and Tom   “To see the coast it issued from. “The winde was love, which princes stout “To pages turnes; but who can doubt “Where equall fortune love procures “And equall love successe assures   “But venturous Jack will bring to Greece   “The best of prize, the golden fleece. “Love is a world of many Spaynes “Where coldest hilles and hottest playnes “With barren rockes and fertile fields “By turnes despayre and comfort yeilds   “But who can doubt of prosperous luck   “Where love and fortune doth conduct. “Thy grandsire, godsire, father too, “Were thine examples so to doe; “Their brave attempts in heate of love, “France, Scotland, Denmarke did approve   “So Jack, and Tom, doe nothing new,   “When love, and fortune, they pursue. “Kind shepheards that have loved them long, “Bee not too rash in censuring wrong: “Correct your feares leave of [off] to mourne “The heavens shall favour their returne   “Commit the care to Royall Pan   “Of Jacke his sonne and Tom his man.” Boswell.

Note return to page 451 5Shackespe.] Mr. Malone has here furnished an authority against his own hypothesis, with regard to the ancient mode of spelling the poet's name; but I think erroneously. What he has made an e, in his transcript, appears to my eye, in the original, to be only a slight flourish to the k. Boswell.

Note return to page 452 6“Josias Howe, the son of Thomas Howe, priest, of Grendon in Bucks, was matriculated as a student of Trinity College, Oxford, April 13, 1632, aged nineteen. About the same time, scholar.” A. W. in MS. This shews he was born not in 1611, as Mr. Warton supposed, but in 1613.

Note return to page 453 7Rob. Glouc. Gloss. p. 669.

Note return to page 454 1Ten in the hundred lies here ingrav'd;] In “The More the Merrier, containing three-score and odd heedless epigrams, shot (like the fooles bolts), among you, light where they will:” By H. P. Gent. &c. 1608. I find the following couplet, which is almost the same as the two beginning lines of this Epitaph on John-a-Combe: Feneratoris Epitaphium. “Ten in the hundred lies under this stone, “And a hundred to ten to the devil he's gone.” Steevens. So, in Camden's Remains, 1614: “Here lyes ten in the hundred,   “In the ground fast ramm'd; “'Tis an hundred to ten   “But his soule is damn'd.” Malone.

Note return to page 455 2Oh! oh! quoth the devil, 'tis my John-a-Combe.] The Rev. Francis Peck, in his Memoirs of the Life and Poetical Works of Mr. John Milton, 4to. 1740, p. 223, has introduced another epitaph imputed (on what authority is unknown) to Shakspeare. It is on Tom-a-Combe, alias Thin-beard, brother to this John, who is mentioned by Mr. Rowe: “Thin in beard, and thick in purse; “Never man beloved worse; “He went to the grave with many a curse: “The devil and he had both one nurse.” Steevens. I suspect these lines were sent to Mr. Peck by some person that meant to impose upon him. It appears from Mr. John Combe's will, that his brother Thomas was dead in 1614. John devised the greater part of his real and personal estate to his nephew Thomas Combe, with whom Shakspeare was certainly on good terms, having bequeathed him his sword. Since I wrote the above, I find from the register of Stratford, that Mr. Thomas Combe (the brother of John) was buried there, Jan. 22, 1608–9. Malone.

Note return to page 456 3I take this opportunity to avow my disbelief that Shakspeare was the author of Mr. Combe's epitaph, or that it was written by any other person at the request of that gentleman. If Betterton the player did really visit Warwickshire for the sake of collecting anecdotes relative to our author, perhaps he was too easily satisfied with such as fell in his way, without making any rigid search into their authenticity. It appears also from a following copy of this inscription, that it was not ascribed to Shakspeare so early as two years after his death. Mr. Reed of Staple-Inn obligingly pointed it out to me in the Remains, &c. of Richard Brathwaite, 1618; and as his edition of our epitaph varies in some measure from the latter one published by Mr. Rowe, I shall not hesitate to transcribe it: “Upon one John Combe of Stratford upon Avon, a notable Usurer, fastened upon a Tombe that he had caused to be built in his Life-Time. “Ten in the hundred must lie in his grave, “But a hundred to ten whether God will him have; “Who then must be interr'd in this tombe? “Oh (quoth the divill) my John a Combe.” Here it may be observed that, strictly speaking, this is no jocular epitaph, but a malevolent prediction; and Brathwaite's copy is surely more to be depended on (being procured in or before the year 1618) than that delivered to Betterton or Rowe, almost a century afterwards. It has been already remarked, that two of the lines said to have been produced on this occasion, were printed as an epigram in 1608, by H. P. Gent. and are likewise found in Camden's Remains, 1614. I may add, that a usurer's solicitude to know what would be reported of him when he was dead, is not a very probable circumstance; neither was Shakspeare of a disposition to compose an invective, at once so bitter and uncharitable, during a pleasant conversation among the common friends of himself and a gentleman, with whose family he lived in such friendship, that at his death he bequeathed his sword to Mr. Thomas Combe as a legacy. A miser's monument indeed, constructed during his life-time, might be regarded as a challenge to satire; and we cannot wonder that anonymous lampoons should have been affixed to the marble designed to convey the character of such a being to posterity.—I hope I may be excused for this attempt to vindicate Shakspeare from the imputation of having poisoned the hour of confidence and festivity, by producing the severest of all censures on one of his company. I am unwilling, in short, to think he could so wantonly and so publickly have expressed his doubts concerning the salvation of one of his fellow-creatures. Steevens. Since the above observations first appeared (in a note to the edition of our author's Poems which I published in 1780), I have obtained an additional proof of what has been advanced, in vindication of Shakspeare on this subject. It occurred to me that the will of John Combe might possibly throw some light on this matter, and an examination of it some years ago furnished me with such evidence as renders the story recorded in Brathwaite's Remains very doubtful; and still more strongly proves that, whoever was the author of this epitaph, it is highly improbable that it should have been written by Shakspeare. The very first direction given by Mr. Combe in his will is, concerning a tomb to be erected to him after his death. “My will is, that a convenient tomb of the value of threescore pounds shall by my executors hereafter named, out of my goods and chattels first raysed, within one year after my decease, be set over me.” So much for Brathwaite's account of his having erected his own tomb in his life-time. That he had any quarrel with our author, or that Shakspeare had by any act stung him so severely that Mr. Combe never forgave him, appears equally void of foundation; for by his will he bequeaths “to Mr. William Shakspere Five Pounds.” It is probable that they lived in intimacy, and that Mr. Combe had made some purchase from our poet; for he devises to his brother George, “the close or grounds known by the name of Parson's Close, alias, Shakspere's Close.” It must be owned that Mr. Combe's will is dated Jan. 28, 1612–13, about eighteen months before his death; and therefore the evidence now produced is not absolutely decisive, as he might have erected a tomb, and a rupture might have happened between him and Shakspeare, after the making of this will: but it is very improbable that any such rupture should have taken place; for if the supposed cause of offence had happened subsequently to the execution of the instrument, it is to be presumed that he would have revoked the legacy to Shakspeare: and the same argument may be urged with respect to the direction concerning his tomb. Mr. Combe by his will bequeathed to Mr. Francis Collins the elder, of the borough of Warwick (who appears as a legatee and subscribing witness to Shakspeare's will, and therefore may be presumed a common friend), ten pounds; to his godson John Collins (the son of Francis), ten pounds; to Mrs. Susanna Collins (probably godmother to our poet's eldest daughter), six pounds, thirteen shillings, and four-pence; to Mr. Henry Walker (father to Shakspeare's godson), twenty shillings; to the poor of Stratford, twenty pounds; and to his servants, in various legacies, one hundred and ten pounds. He was buried at Stratford, July 12, 1614, and his will was proved, Nov. 10, 1615. Our author, at the time of making his will, had it not in his power to show any testimony of his regard for Mr. Combe, that gentleman being then dead; but that he continued a friendly correspondence with his family to the last, appears evidently (as Mr. Steevens has observed) from his leaving his sword to Mr. Thomas Combe, the nephew, residuary legatee, and one of the executors of John. On the whole we may conclude, that the lines preserved by Rowe, and inserted with some variation in Brathwaite's Remains, which the latter has mentioned to have been affixed to Mr. Combe's tomb in his life-time, were not written till after Shakspeare's death; for the executors, who did not prove the will till Nov. 1615, could not well have erected “a fair monument” of considerable expence for those times, till the middle or perhaps the end of the year 1616, in the April of which year our poet died. Between that time and the year 1618, when Brathwaite's book appeared, some one of those persons (we may presume) who had suffered by Mr. Combe's severity, gave vent to his feelings in the satirical composition preserved by Rowe; part of which, we have seen, was borrowed from epitaphs that had already been printed.—That Mr. Combe was a money-lender, may be inferred from a clause in his will, in which he mentions his “good and just debtors;” to every one of whom he remits “twenty shillings for every twenty pounds, and so after this rate for a greater or lesser debt,” on their paying in to his executors what they owe. Mr. Combe married Mrs. Rose Clopton, the youngest daughter of William Clopton, of Clopton, Esq. [it was old John who married Rose Clopton], August 27, 1561; and therefore was probably, when he died, eighty years old. His property, from the description of it, appears to have been considerable. In justice to this gentleman it should be remembered, that in the language of Shakspeare's age an usurer did not mean one who took exorbitant, but any, interest or usance for money; which many then considered as criminal. The opprobrious term by which such a person was distinguished, “Ten in the hundred,” proves this; for ten per cent. was the ordinary interest of money. See Shakspeare's will.—Sir Philip Sidney directs by his will, made in 1586, that Sir Francis Walsingham shall put four thousand pounds which the testator bequeathed to his daughter, “to the best behoofe either by purchase of land or lease, or some other good and godly use, but in no case to let it out for any usury at all.” Malone. In whatever form it may have been transmitted to us, I cannot allow myself to entertain a doubt that this legendary story was an idle traditionary fabrication from beginning to end. Mr. Rowe's expressions are worthy of notice; he tells us it is almost still remembered at Stratford,—a very slender foundation to rest upon. These verses occur in a variety of different shapes in our old miscellanies, and some of the variations are pointed out in a preceding page. I could easily add to the number if it were worth while, but it is to be remarked, that in none of them are the lines attributed to Shakspeare. His property in them rests entirely upon the authority of Aubrey, and Rowe's tradition. This epitaph occurs, as Mr. Steevens has already observed, in Brathwaite's Remains, and I have myself very little doubt that Brathwaite was the author, and that the circumstance of building his tomb in his life-time was a mere notion, to add poignancy to the satire. My friend, Mr. Haslewood, in his very curious republication of Barnabæ Itinerarium, has given us an ample account of this voluminous writer's productions; of these, there is one entitled Spiritual Spicerie, containing sundry sweet Tractates of Devotion and Pietie. In one of these tractates, the author penitentially reviews the errors of his past life, and probably alludes to this very lampoon: “I could jeere him to his face whom I needed most; Ten at hundred I meane, and he would not stick to pay mee in mine own coyne; I might beg a courtesie at his hands, but to starve for't never prevaile, wherein I found this instrument of usurie and the Devil to be of one societie,” &c. As we find from this that he was in the habit of jeering a money-lender, and as these lines are printed in his name, it is, I think, much more probable, that they proceeded from an angry spend-thrift, than that Shakspeare should have composed them under any circumstances, upon one with whom he lived in habits of friendship. Another legendary story which does perhaps still less honour to our poet, I will give in the words of a native of Stratford, John Jordan, as he communicated it to Mr. Malone: “Amongst the many juvenile levities of Shakspeare, I cannot omit delineating some other traits of his character; tradition says that he loved hearty draughts of English beer or ale, and that there were then two companies of people who usually met at a village called Bidford, about seven miles below Stratford, upon the Banks of the Avon, who distinguished themselves by the appellations of the topers and sippers, the former of whom were accounted the most eminent in the science of drinking the largest quantity of liquor without being intoxicated; yet the latter were also very powerful, and looked on themselves superior to most other companies of drinkers in this country. “These sons of Bacchus challenged all the men in England to drink with them, to try the strength of their heads; the Stratford bard and his companions accepted it, and repaired to Bidford on a Whitsun Monday, to make a trial with the topers, but to their disappointment, they discovered that they were gone to Evesham Fair upon a like excursion; so the Stratfordians with Shakspeare were obliged to take up with the sippers, who they scoffed at as unworthy the contest; but upon trial they found themselves very inferior to their opponents, and were at last obliged to own their superiority; for the poet and his companions got so intoxicated, that they were obliged to decline any further trial; and leaving Bidford, they proceeded homeward; but poor William when he came about half a mile from the village, unable to go on, laid himself down upon the verdant turf, beneath the umbrageous boughs of a wide spreading crab tree, where he took his night's repose, the lark's early matins awaked him, and he was invited to return to Bidford by some of his convivial companions to renew the contest, but he refused; says he, I have drank with “‘Piping Pebworth, Dancing Marston, “‘Haunted Hillborough, and Hungry Grafton, “‘With Dadging Exhall, Papist Wixford, “‘Beggarly Broom, and Drunken Bidford.”’ “These lines seem to intimate that the opponents consisted of a motley group selected from the above villages; Pebworth is still celebrated for the skill of its inhabitants, in music and rural festivity; and Long Marston or Marston Sicca (as it is commonly wrote), the inhabitants of which are noted for their activity in country dances; and Hillborough is a lonely hamlet said by the tradition of the vicinage to have been haunted by spirits and fairies: Hungry Grafton, I suppose, received that appellation from the barrenness of its soil; but however that may be, the produce of its excellent stone quarries make sufficient amends for the sterility of the land. Dadging Exhall,—I must confess I am at a loss how to account for the appellation of Dadging; but Papist Wixford, is a village belonging to the Throckmorton family, and the tenants are most of them of the Roman Catholick Religion. Beggarly Broom must have been so called from the badness of the soil; and Drunken Bidford still deserves the name; for though it is but a small village, there are five public houses in it, and the people love ale as well as they did in the days of Shakspeare. Of this I am certain, from my own observations, having resided amongst them above half a year.” I cannot help thinking that this is a second instance in which poor Brathwaite may have been robbed of his property. This doggerel nonsense is very unlikely to have proceeded from Shakspeare, but would cut a very respectable figure in Drunken Barnabie's Journal. It may at first create surprise that such anecdotes should have been at any time current in Stratford of one who is their greatest boast; but this mode of doing honour to a distinguished character may be paralleled elsewhere. Those pranks which, under different names, such as Marcolphus and Bertoldo, &c. have afforded amusement to the lower orders in almost every nation, are attributed in a popular Scotch chap-book to Buchanan. Many of his countrymen, who never heard of him as an historian, or a poet, are familiarly acquainted with George Buchanan, the king's jester. Boswell.

Note return to page 457 4This custom of adding an S to many names, both in speaking and writing, was very common in the last age. Shakspeare's fellow comedian, John Heminge, was always called Mr. Hemings by his contemporaries, and Lord Clarendon constantly writes Bishop Earles, instead of Bishop Earle. “S (says Camden in his Remaines, 4to. 1605,) also is joyned to most [names] now, as Manors, Knoles, Crofts, Hilles, Combes,” &c.

Note return to page 458 5Mr. Combe was buried at Stratford, July 12, 1614. The entry in the Register of that parish confirms the observation made above; for though written by a clergyman, it stands thus: “July 12, 1614. Mr. John Combes, Gener.”

Note return to page 459 6See Percy's Reliques of Ancient Poetry, vol. iii. p. 202.

Note return to page 460 7Dr. Hall's pocket-book after his death fell into the hands of a surgeon of Warwick, who published a translation of it, (with some additions of his own) under the title of Select Observations on the English Bodies of eminent Persons, in desperate Diseases, &c. The third edition was printed in 1683.

Note return to page 461 8And curst be he that moves my bones.] It is uncertain whether this epitaph was written by Shakspeare himself, or by one of his friends after his death. The imprecation contained in this last line, was perhaps suggested by an apprehension that our author's remains might share the same fate with those of the rest of his countrymen, and be added to the immense pile of human bones deposited in the charnel house at Stratford. This, however, is mere conjecture; for similar execrations are found in many ancient Latin epitaphs. Mr. Steevens has justly mentioned it as a singular circumstance, that Shakspeare does not appear to have written any verses on his contemporaries, either in praise of the living, or in honour of the dead. I once imagined that he had mentioned Spenser with kindness in one of his Sonnets; but have since discovered that the Sonnet to which I allude, was written by Richard Barnefield. If, however, the following epitaphs be genuine, (and indeed the latter is much in Shakspeare's manner), he in two instances overcame that modest diffidence, which seems to have supposed the eulogium of his humble muse of no value. In a Manuscript volume of poems by William Herrick and others, in the hand-writing of the time of Charles I. which is among Rawlinson's Collections in the Bodleian Library, is the following epitaph, ascribed to our poet: “AN EPITAPH. “When God was pleas'd, the world unwilling yet, “Elias James to nature payd his debt, “And here reposeth: as he liv'd, he dyde; “The saying in him strongly verefide,— “Such life, such death: then, the known truth to tell, He liv'd a godly life, and dyde as well. “WM. SHAKSPEARE.” There was formerly a family of the surname of James at Stratford. Anne, the wife of Richard James, was buried there on the same day with our poet's widow; and Margaret, the daughter of John James, died there in April, 1616. A monumental inscription “of a better leer,” and said to be written by our author, is preserved in a collection of Epitaphs, at the end of the Visitation of Salop, taken by Sir William Dugdale in the year 1664, now remaining in the College of Arms C 35, fol. 20; a transcript of which Sir Isaac Heard, Garter Principal King at Arms, has obligingly transmitted to me. Among the monuments in Tongue church, in the county of Salop, is one erected in remembrance of Sir Thomas Stanley, Knight, who died, as I imagine, about the year 1600. In the Visitation-book it is thus described by Sir William Dugdale: “On the north side of the chancell stands a very statelie tombe, supported with Corinthian columnes. It hath two figures of men in armour, thereon lying, the one below the arches and columnes, and the other above them, and this epitaph upon it. “Thomas Stanley, Knight, second son of Edward Earle of Derby, Lord Stanley and Strange, descended from the famielie of the Stanleys, married Margaret Vernon, one of the daughters and co-heires of Sir George Vernon of Nether-Haddon, in the county of Derby, Knight, by whom he had issue two sons, Henry and Edward. Henry died an infant; Edward survived, to whom those lordships descended: and married the lady Lucie Percie, second daughter of the Earle of Northumberland: by her he had issue seaven daughters. She and her foure daughters, Arabella, Marie, Alice, and Priscilla, are interred under a monument in the church of Waltham in the county of Essex. Thomas, her son, died in his infancy, and is buried in the parish church of Winwich in the county of Lancaster. The other three, Petronilla, Frances, and Venesia, are yet living. “These following verses were made by William Shakespeare, the late famous tragedian: “Written upon the east end of this tombe. “Aske who lyes here, but do not weepe; “He is not dead, he doth but sleepe. “This stony register is for his bones, “His fame is more perpetual than these stones: “And his own goodness, with himself being gone, “Shall live, when earthly monument is none.” “Written upon the west end thereof. “Not monumental stone preserves our fame, “Nor skye-aspiring pyramids our name. “The memory of him for whom this stands, “Shall out-live marble, and defacers' hands. “When all to time's consumption shall be given, “Stanley, for whom this stands, shall stand in heaven.” The last line of this epitaph, though the worst, bears very strong marks of the hand of Shakspeare. The beginning of the first line, “Aske who lyes here,” reminds us of that which we have been just examining: “If any man ask who lies in this tomb,” &c.—And in the fifth line we find a thought which our poet has also introduced in King Henry VIII.: “Ever belov'd and loving may his rule be! “And, when old time shall lead him to his grave, “Goodness and he fill up one monument!” This epitaph must have been written after the year 1600, for Venetia Stanley, who afterwards was the wife of Sir Kenelm Digby, was born in that year. With a view to ascertain its date more precisely, the churches of Great and Little Waltham have been examined for the monument said to have been erected to Lady Lucy Stanley and her four daughters, but in vain; for no trace of it remains: nor could the time of their respective deaths be ascertained, the registers of those parishes being lost.— Sir William Dugdale was born in Warwickshire, was bred at the free-school of Coventry, and in the year 1625, purchased the manor of Blythe in that county, where he then settled and afterwards spent a great part of his life: so that his testimony respecting this epitaph is sufficient to ascertain its authenticity.

Note return to page 462 1“The portrait palmed upon Mr. Pope,” (I use the words of the late Mr. Oldys, in a MS. note to his copy of Langbaine,) “for an original of Shakspeare, from which he had his fine plate engraven, is evidently a juvenile portrait of King James I.” I am no judge in these matters, but only deliver an opinion, which if ill-grounded may be easily overthrown. The portrait, to me at least, has no traits of Shakspeare. Steevens.

Note return to page 463 2Mr. Malone has already expressed this opinion, in his Detection of the Ireland forgery; and has there mentioned, that he had obtained documents which clearly proved that this confession of faith could not have been the composition of any one of our poet's family. I have not been able to discover this documentary evidence, but I suppose it may have been connected with his discovery of John Shakspeare the shoemaker, whom he mentions in the commencement of this Life, and who has been hitherto confounded with the poet's father. It is highly improbable, indeed, that the latter, who held the situation of Bailiff of Stratford, should have been a Roman Catholick. Boswell.

Note return to page 464 3See Appendix.

Note return to page 465 1Eight. in orig.

Note return to page 466 2E. L. died in 1586, according to the account of his son John.

Note return to page 467 3No mention of impaling these arms with those of Arden.

Note return to page 468 4Between 17 Nov. 1599, and 25 March, 1599–1600,

Note return to page 469 1Sic MS.

Note return to page 470 2So in the Record (should be “Quadringentas.”)

Note return to page 471 2Sir F. Greville, and Sir John Conway.

Note return to page 472 3Hamnet or Hamlet Sadler, who was probably godfather to Shakspeare's only son. He had accompanied Mr. Richard Quiney to London, on the business of the borough of Stratford.

Note return to page 473 4The borough of Stratford at this time were soliciting the Lord Treasurer Burghley to be exempted from the subsidies imposed in the last Parliament, on the plea of poverty and distress occasioned by two recent fires.

Note return to page 474 5Probably Mrs. Mary Combe, the wife of Thomas Combe, John Combe's elder brother.

Note return to page 475 6Claus. 34 Eliz. p. 13.

Note return to page 476 7Pat. 41 Eliz. p. 12.

Note return to page 477 8Murden, p. 663.

Note return to page 478 9The eldest son of Lord Hunsden.

Note return to page 479 1i. e. for fear of displeasing, &c.

Note return to page 480 2As little of Dyer's poetry is generally known, I have annexed the following not unfavourable specimen transcribed by Mr. Malone from Rawlinson's MSS. in the Bodleian, compared with another copy in the Ashmolean Museum:: “He that his mirth hath lost whose comforte is dismayde, “Whose hope is vayne, whose fayth is scornde, whose trust is all betrayde, “If he have held them deere, and cannot cease to moane, “Come let him take his place by me, he shall not rue alone. “Butt if the smallest sweete be mixte with all his soure “If in the daye, the month, the yeere he feele one lightninge howre. “Then rest he by him selfe he is no mate for me “Whose hope is falne, whose succour voyde whose hap his death must be “Yet not the wished death which hath no playnt nor lack, “Which makynge free the better part is only nature's wracke. “Oh no; that were too good; my death is of the mynde “Which bringes allwayes the extremest paynes and leaves the worst behynde† [Subnote: †MS. A. “Which allwayes yeeldes extremest paynes yet keepes the worst behynde.”] . &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; &stellam; “The solytarye woodes my cytye shall become, “The darkest den shall be my lodge wherein I'll rest or run‡ [Subnote: ‡MS. A. “Wherein no light shall come.”] . “Of hebon blacke my boorde, the wormes my feast shall be, “Wherwith my carcase shall be fedd untyll they feed on me. “My wine of Niobe* [Subnote: *i. e. tears.] my bed the craggy rocke, “The serpents hiss my harmonye, the skrychyng owlle my cocke. “My exercise nought else but raging agonies, “My bookes of spytefull fortunes spoylles and dreerye tragedyes; “My walk the pathes of plaint, my prospect into hell, “Where wretched Sysiphe and his pheeres in endless paynes do dwell. “And thoughe I seeme to use the poets' fayned style, “To figure forth my wofull plight, my fall and my exile. “Yet is my woe not faynde, wherein I sterve and pyne; “Who feeleth most, shall finde his least comparing his with myne. “My Songe, if any aske—“whose grievous case is such?” “Dyer then let his name be knowne; his folly showes to muche. “Butt best 'twere thee to hide, and never come to lyght, “For in the world can none but I thye accents sound aright.” Miserum est fuisse, E. Dier. Finis.

Note return to page 481 1In the Herald's Office are the first draughts of John Shakspeare's grant or confirmation of arms, by William Dethick, Garter, Principal King at Arms, 1596. See Vincent's Press, vol. 157, No. 23, and 4. Steevens. In a Manuscript in the College of Heralds, marked W. 2. p. 276, is the following note: “As for the speare in bend, it is a patible difference, and the person to whom it was granted hath borne magistracy, and was justice of peace at Stratford-upon-Avon. He married the daughter and heire of Arderne, and was able to maintain that estate.” Malone.

Note return to page 482 2&lblank; his auncient cote of arms, heretofore assigned to him whilest he was her Majesties officer and baylefe of that towne;] This grant of arms was made by Robert Cook, Clarencieux, in 1569, but is not now extant in the Herald's Office. Malone.

Note return to page 483 3&lblank; and we have likewise—impaled the same with the auncyent arms of the said Arden &lblank;] It is said by Mr. Jacob, the modern editor of Arden of Feversham (first published in 1592 and republished in 1631 and 1770) that Shakspeare descended by the female line from the gentleman whose unfortunate end is the subject of this tragedy. But the assertion appears to want support, the true name of the person who was murdered at Feversham being Ardern and not Arden. Arden might be called Arden in the play for the sake of better sound, or might be corrupted in the Chronicle of Holinshed: yet it is unlikely that the true spelling should be overlooked among the Heralds, whose interest it is to recommend by ostentatious accuracy the trifles in which they deal. Steevens. Ardern was the original name, but in Shakspeare's time it had been softened to Arden. Malone.

Note return to page 484 2John Heming did not sign, or seal.

Note return to page 485 3i. e. Scrivener.

Note return to page 486 4These words are merely copied from Walker's Conveyance to Shakspeare, in March, 1612–13. From a subsequent part of this deed it appears that John Robinson was now the tenant in possession, under a lease made to him by Shakspeare for a term of years.

Note return to page 487 1Our poet's will appears to have been drawn up in February, though not executed till the following month; for February was first written, and afterwards struck out, and March written over it.

Note return to page 488 2This was found to be unnecessary, as it was ascertained that the copyhold descended to the eldest daughter by the custom of the manor.

Note return to page 489 3&lblank; to my niece &lblank;] Elizabeth Hall was our poet's grand-daughter. So, in Othello, Act I. Sc. I. Iago says to Brabantio, “You'll have your nephews neigh to you;” meaning his grand-children. See the note there.

Note return to page 490 4&lblank; Hart,] It is singular that neither Shakspeare nor any of his family should have recollected the Christian name of his nephew, who was born at Stratford but eleven years before the making of his will. His Christian name was Thomas; and he was baptized in that town, July 24, 1605. He was at this time, therefore, between ten and eleven years old.

Note return to page 491 5&lblank; except my broad silver and gilt bowl,] This bowl, as we afterwards find, our poet bequeathed to his daughter Judith. Instead of bowl, Mr. Theobald, and all the subsequent editors, have here printed boxes.

Note return to page 492 5&lblank; Mr. Thomas Combe,] This gentleman was baptized at Stratford, Feb. 9, 1588–9; he was therefore twenty-seven years old at the time of Shakspeare's death. He died at Stratford in July, 1657, aged 68; and his elder brother William died at the same place, Jan. 30, 1666–7, aged 80. Mr. Thomas Combe, by his will made June 20, 1656, directed his executors to convert all his personal property into money, and to lay it out in the purchase of lands, to be settled on William Combe, the eldest son of John Combe of Allchurch, in the county of Worcester, Gent. and his heirs male; remainder to his two brothers successively. Where therefore our poet's sword has wandered, I have not been able to discover. I have taken the trouble to ascertain the ages of Shakspeare's friends and relations, and the time of their deaths, because we are thus enabled to judge how far the traditions concerning him, which were communicated to Mr. Rowe in the beginning of this century, are worthy of credit.

Note return to page 493 6&lblank; to Francis Collins &lblank;] This gentleman was, I believe, christened at Warwick. He died the year after our poet, and was buried at Stratford, Sep. 27, 1617, on which day he died.

Note return to page 494 7&lblank; to Hamnet Sadler &lblank;] This gentleman was godfather to Shakspeare's only son, who was called after him. Mr. Sadler, I believe, was born about the year 1550, and died at Stratford-upon-Avon, where he was buried, October 26, 1624. His wife Judith Sadler, who was godmother to Shakspeare's youngest daughter, was buried there, March 23, 1613–14. Our poet probably was godfather to their son William, who was baptized at Stratford, Feb. 5, 1597–8.

Note return to page 495 8&lblank; to my godson William Walker.] This godson of our author was the son of Mr. Henry Walker, who was elected an Alderman of Stratford, January 3, 1605–6. William was baptized at Stratford, October 16, 1608. I mention this circumstance, because it ascertains that our author was at his native town in the autumn of that year. Mr. William Walker was buried at Stratford, March, 1679–80.

Note return to page 496 9&lblank; to Antony Nash,] He was father of Mr. Thomas Nash, who married our poet's grand-daughter, Elizabeth Hall. He lived, I believe, at Welcombe, where his estate lay; and was buried at Stratford, Nov. 18, 1622.

Note return to page 497 1&lblank; to Mr. John Nash,] This gentleman died at Stratford, and was buried there, Nov. 10, 1623.

Note return to page 498 2&lblank; to my fellows, John Hemynge, Richard Burbage, and Henry Cundell.] These our poet's fellows did not very long survive him. Burbage died in March, 1619; Cundell in December, 1627; and Heminge in October, 1630. See their wills in the Account of our old Actors in the third volume.

Note return to page 499 3&lblank; received, perceived,] Instead of these words, we have hitherto had in all the printed copies of this will reserved, preserved

Note return to page 500 4&lblank; Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe,] The lands of Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcome, here devised, were in Shakspeare's time a continuation of one large field, all in the parish of Stratford. Bishopton is two miles from Stratford, and Welcombe one. For Bishopton, Mr. Theobald erroneously printed Bushaxton, and the errour has been continued in all the subsequent editions. The word in Shakspeare's original will is Bushopton, the vulgar pronunciation of Bishopton. I searched the Indexes in the Rolls chapel from the year 1589 to 1616, with the hope of finding an enrolment of the purchase deed of the estate here devised by our poet, and of ascertaining its extent and value; but it was not enrolled during that period, nor could I find any inquisition taken after his death, by which its value might have been ascertained. I suppose it was conveyed by the former owner to Shakspeare, not by bargain and sale, but by a deed of feoffment, which it was not necessary to enroll.

Note return to page 501 5&lblank; that messuage or tenement—in the Blackfriars in London near the Wardrobe;] This was the house which was mortgaged to Henry Walker. By the Wardrobe is meant the King's Great Wardrobe, a royal house, near Puddle Wharf, purchased by King Edward the Third from Sir John Beauchamp, who built it. King Richard III. was lodged in this house in the second year of his reign. See Stowe's Survey, p. 693, edit. 1618. After the fire of London this office was kept in the Savoy; but it is now abolished.

Note return to page 502 6&lblank; my second-best bed, with the furniture.] Thus Shakspeare's original will. Mr. Theobald and the other modern editors have been more bountiful to Mrs. Shakspeare, having printed instead of these words, “&lblank; my brown best bed, with the furniture.” Malone. It appears, in the original will of Shakspeare (now in the Prerogative-Office, Doctors' Commons), that he had forgot his wife; the legacy to her being expressed by an interlineation, as well as those to Heminge, Burbage, and Condell. The will is written on three sheets of paper, the two last of which are undoubtedly subscribed with Shakspeare's own hand. The first indeed has his name in the margin, but it differs somewhat in spelling as well as manner, from the two signatures that follow. The reader will find a fac-simile of all the three, as well as those of the witnesses, on the opposite page. Steevens.

Note return to page 503 6By me William Shakspeare.] This was the mode of our poet's time. Thus the Register of Stratford is signed at the bottom of each page, in the year 1616, “Per me Richard Watts, Minister.” These concluding words have hitherto been inaccurately exhibited thus: “&lblank; the day and year first above-written, by me William Shakspeare.” Neither the day, nor year, nor any preceding part of this will, was written by our poet. “By me,” &c. only means—The above is the will of me William Shakspeare.

Note return to page 504 7&lblank; Fra. Collins.] See p. 604, n. 6.

Note return to page 505 8&lblank; Julius Shaw &lblank;] was born in Sept. 1571. He married Anne Boyes, May 5, 1594; and died at Stratford, where he was buried, June 24, 1629.

Note return to page 506 9&lblank; John Robinson.] John, son of Thomas Robinson, was baptized at Stratford, Nov. 30, 1589. I know not when he died.

Note return to page 507 1&lblank; Hamnet Sadler.] See p. 604, n. 7.

Note return to page 508 2The total omission of his wife's name by Shakspeare in the first draft of his will, and the very moderate legacy he afterwards inserted, has created a suspicion that his affections were estranged from her either through jealousy or some other cause. But if we may suppose that some provision had been made for her during his life-time, the bequest of his second-best bed was probably considered in those days neither as uncommon nor reproachful. Sir Thomas Lucy, the younger, by his will in 1600, of which I find an account among Mr. Malone's Adversaria, leaves to his second son, Richard, his second-best horse, but no land, because his father-in-law had promised to provide for him. Shakspeare's not recollecting at first to mention her name at all, will be no great subject of surprise, when we recollect the remarkable instances of forgetfulness which perpetually occur in documents of this nature. He had forgotten also, at first, his fellows, Heminge, Burbage, and Condell, upon whom he certainly did not intend to fix a stigma. If he had taken offence at any part of his wife's conduct, I cannot believe that he would have taken this petty mode of expressing it. Boswell.

Note return to page 509 4An inaccurate and very imperfect list of the baptisms, &c. of Shakspeare's family was transmitted by Mr. West some years ago to Mr. Steevens. The list now printed I have extracted with great care from the Registers of Stratford; and, I trust, it will be found correct. [Those marked with an asterisk, according to Mr. Malone's hypothesis, did not belong to the poet's family. See p. 51.]

Note return to page 510 5This lady Mr. West supposed to have married the ancestor of the Harts of Stratford; but he was certainly mistaken. She died probably in her infancy. The wife of Mr. Hart was undoubtedly the second Jone, mentioned below. Her son Michael was born in the latter end of the year 1608, at which time she was above thirty-nine years old. The elder Jone would then have been near fifty.

Note return to page 511 6He was born three days before, April 23, 1564. I have said this on the faith of Mr. Green, who, I find, made the extract from the register which Mr. West gave Mr. Steevens; but quære, how did Mr. Green ascertain this fact?

Note return to page 512 7This Richard Hathaway of Shottery was probably the father to Anne Hathaway, our poet's wife. There is no entry of her baptism, the Register not commencing till 1558, two years after she was born. Thomas, the son of this Richard Hathaway, was baptized at Stratford, April 12, 1569; John, another son, Feb. 3, 1574; and William, another son, Nov. 30, 1578.

Note return to page 513 8It was common in the age of Queen Elizabeth to give the same christian name to two children successively. (Thus, Mr. Sadler, who was godfather to Shakspeare's son, had two sons who were baptized by the name of John.) This was undoubtedly done in the present instance. The former Jone having probably died, (though I can find no entry of her burial in the Register, nor indeed of many of the other children of John Shakspeare) the name of Jone, a very favourite one in those days, was transferred to another new-born child. This latter Jone married Mr. William Hart, a hatter in Stratford, some time, as I conjecture, in the year 1599, when she was thirty years old; for her eldest son William was baptized there, August 28, 1600. There is no entry of her marriage in the Register.

Note return to page 514 9There was also a Mr. Henry Shakspeare settled at Hampton-Lucy, as appears from the Register of that parish: Lettice, daughter of Henry Shakspeare, was baptized, June 10, 1582. James, son of Henry Shakspeare, was baptized, October 15, 1585. James, son of Henry Shakspeare, was buried September 25, 1589. There was a Thomas Shakspeare settled at Warwick; for in the Rolls Chapel I found the inrolment of a deed made in the 44th year of Queen Elizabeth, conveying “to Thomas Shakspeare of Warwick, yeoman, Sachbroke, alias Bishop-Sachbroke, in Com. Warw.” Malone.

Note return to page 515 1Mr. West, or Mr. Green (who made the extract for him), imagined that our poet's only son was christened by the name of Samuel, but he was mistaken. Mr. Hamnet Sadler, who was related, if I mistake not, to the Shakspeare family, appears to have been sponsor to his son; and his wife, Mrs. Judith Sadler, to have been godmother to Judith, the other twin-child. The name Hamnet is written very distinctly both in the entry of the baptism and burial of this child. Hamnet and Hamlet seem to have been considered as the same name, and to have been used indiscriminately both in speaking and writing. Thus, this Mr. Hamnet Sadler, who is a witness to Shakspeare's Will, writes his christian name, Hamnet; but the scrivener who drew up the will, writes it Hamlet. There is the same variation in the Register of Stratford, where the name is spelt in three or four different ways. Thus among the baptisms we find in 1591, “May 26, John filius Hamletti Sadler;” and in 1583, “Sept. 13, Margaret, daughter to Hamlet Sadler.” But in 1588, Sept. 20, we find, “John, son to Hamnet Sadler;” in 1596, April 4, we have “Judith, filia Hamnet Sadler;” in 1597–8, “Feb. 3, Wilelmus, filius Hambnet Sadler; and in 1599, “April 23, Francis, filius Hamnet Sadler.” This Mr. Sadler died in 1624, and the entry of his burial, which was made by Mr. Simon Trappe, curate of the parish, stands thus: “1624, Oct, 26, Hamlet Sadler.” So also in that of his wife: “1623, March 23, Judith, uxor Hamlet Sadler.” The name of Hamlet occurs in several other entries in the Register. Oct. 4, 1576, “Hamlet, son to Humphry Holdar,” was buried; and Sept. 28, 1564, “Catharina, uxor Hamoleti Hassal.” Mr. Hamlet Smith, formerly of the borough of Stratford, is one of the benefactors annually commemorated there. Our poet's only son, Hamnet, or Hamlet, died in 1596, in the twelfth year of his age.

Note return to page 516 2This gentleman married our poet's youngest daughter. He had three sisters, Elizabeth, Anne, and Mary, and five brothers; Adrian, born in 1586, Richard, born in 1587, William, born in 1593, John in 1597, and George, baptized April 9, 1600. George was curate of the parish of Stratford, and died of a consumption. He was buried there April 11, 1624. In Doctor Hall's pocketbook is the following entry relative to him: “38, Mr. Quiney, tussi gravi cum magna phlegmatis copia, et cibi vomitu, feb. lenta debilitatus,” &c. The case concludes thus: “Anno seq. (no year is mentioned in the case, but the preceding case is dated 1624,) in hoc malum incidebat. Multa frustra tentata;—placide cum Domino dormit. Fuit boni indolis, et pro juveni omnifariam doctus.”

Note return to page 517 3This Ursula, and her brothers Humphrey and Philip, appear to have been the children of John Shakspeare the shoemaker.

Note return to page 518 4A great many names occur in this Register, with an alias, the meaning of which it is not very easy to ascertain. I should have supposed that the persons thus described were illegitimate; but that in the Register we frequently find the word bastard expressly added to the names of the children baptized. The Rev. Mr. Davenport observes to me that there are two families at present in Stratford, (and probably several more) that are distinguished by an alias. “The real name of one of these families is Roberts, but they generally go by the name of Burford. The ancestor of the family came originally from Burford in Oxfordshire, and was frequently called from this circumstance by the name of Burford, This name has prevailed, and they are always now called by it; but they write their name, Roberts, alias Burford, and are so entered in the Register. “The real name of the other family is Smith, but they are more known by the name of Buck. The ancestor of this family, from some circumstance or other, obtained the nickname of Buck, and they now write themselves Smith, alias Buck.

Note return to page 519 5This gentleman married our poet's grand-daughter, Elizabeth Hall. His father, Mr. Anthony Nash, lived at Welcombe, (where he had an estate), as appears by the following entry of the baptism of another of his sons: “1598, Oct. 15, John, son to Mr. Anthony Nash, of Welcombe.”

Note return to page 520 6This was the father of Mr. Thomas Quiney, who married Shakspeare's youngest daughter.

Note return to page 521 7This was probably a son of Gilbert Shakspeare, our poet's brother. When the elder Gilbert died, the Register does not inform us; but he certainly died before his son.

Note return to page 522 8This William Hart was our poet's brother-in-law. He died, it appears, a few days before Shakspeare.

Note return to page 523 9He died, as appears from his monument, April 23d.

Note return to page 524 1No one hath protracted the Life of Shakspeare beyond 1616, except Mr. Hume, who is pleased to add a year to it, contrary to all manner of evidence. Farmer.

Note return to page 525 3Father of Mr. Thomas Nash, the husband of Elizabeth Hall.

Note return to page 526 4This lady, who was the poet's widow, and whose maiden name was Anne Hathaway, died, as appears from her tomb-stone at the age of 67, and consequently was near eight years older than her husband. The following is the inscription on her tombstone in the Church of Stratford: “Here lyeth interred the body of Anne, wife of William Shakespeare, who departed this life the 6th day of August 1623, being of the age of 67 years.” After this inscription follow six Latin verses not worth preserving. I have not been able to ascertain when or where they were married, but suspect the ceremony was performed at Billesley, in August 1582. The register of that parish is lost.

Note return to page 527 5It appears from Lady Barnard's will that this Thomas Hart was alive in 1669. The Register does not ascertain the time of his death, nor that of his father.

Note return to page 528 6Susanna's husband, Dr. John Hall, is interred in the chancel of the church of Stratford near his wife. The following is a transcript of his will, extracted from the Registry of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury: “The last Will and Testament nuncupative of John Hall of Stratford-upon-Avon in the county of Warwick, Gent. made and declared the five and twentieth of November, 1635. Imprimis, I give unto my wife my house in London. Item, I give unto my daughter Nash my house in Acton. Item, I give unto my daughter Nash my meadow. Item, I give my goods and money unto my wife and my daughter Nash, to be equally divided betwixt them. Item, concerning my study of books, I leave them, said he, to you, my son Nash, to dispose of them as you see good. As for my manuscripts, I would have given them to Mr. Boles, if he had been here; but forasmuch he is not here present, you may, son Nash, burn them, or do with them what you please. Witnesses hereunto, “Thomas Nash, Simon Trapp.” The testator not having appointed any executor, administration was granted to his widow, Nov. 23, 1636. Some at least of Dr. Hall's manuscripts escaped the flames, one of them being yet extant. See p. 505. I could not, after a very careful search, find the will of Susanna Hall in the Prerogative-office, nor is it preserved in the Archives of the diocese of Worcester, the Registrar of which diocese at my request very obligingly examined the indexes of all the wills proved in his office between the years 1649 and 1670; but in vain. The town of Stratford-upon-Avon is in that diocese. The inscriptions on the tomb-stones of our poet's favourite daughter and her husband are as follows: “Here lyeth the body of John Hall, Gent. he marr. Susanna, ye daughter and co-heire of Will. Shakspeare, Gent. he deceased Nov. 25, Ao. 1635, aged 60.” “Hallius hic situs est, medica celeberrimus arte,   “Expectans regni gaudia læta Dei. “Dignus erat meritis qui Nestora vinceret annis;   “In terris omnes sed rapit æqua dies. “Ne tumulo quid desit, adest fidissima conjux,   “Et vitæ comitem nunc quoque mortis habet.” These verses should seem, from the last two lines, not to have been inscribed on Dr. Hall's tomb-stone till 1649. Perhaps indeed the last distich only was then added. “Here lyeth the body of Susanna, wife to John Hall, Gent. ye daughter of William Shakspeare, Gent. She deceased the 11th of July, Ao. 1649, aged 66.” “Witty above her sexe, but that's not all,   “Wise to salvation was good Mistriss Hall. “Something of Shakspeare was in that, but this   “Wholy of him with whom she's now in blisse. “Then, passenger, hast ne're a teare,   “To weepe with her that wept with all: “That wept, yet set her selfe to chere   “Them up with comforts cordiall. “Her love shall live, her mercy spread, “When thou hast ne're a teare to shed.” The foregoing English verses, which are preserved by Dugdale, are not now remaining, half of the tomb-stone having been cut away, and another half stone joined to it; with the following inscription on it—“Here lyeth the body of Richard Watts of Ryhon-Clifford, in the parish of old Stratford, Gent. who departed this life the 23d of May, Anno Dom. 1707, and in the 46th year of his age.” This Mr. Watts, as I am informed by the Rev. Mr. Davenport, was owner of, and lived at the estate of Ryhon-Clifford, which was once the property of Dr. Hall. Elizabeth, our poet's grand-daughter, who appears to have been a favourite, Shakspeare having left her by his will a memorial of his affection, though she at that time was but eight years old, was born in February 1607–8, as appears by an entry in the Register of Stratford, which Mr. West omitted in the transcript with which he furnished Mr. Steevens. I learn from the same Register that she was married in 1626: “Marriages. April 22, 1626, Mr. Thomas Nash to Mistriss Elizabeth Hall.” It should be remembered that every unmarried lady was called Mistress till the time of George I. Hence our author's Mistresse Anne Page. Nor in speaking of an unmarried lady could her Christian name be omitted, as it often is at present; for then no distinction would have remained between her and her mother. Some married ladies indeed were distinguished from their daughters by the title of Madam. The following is the inscription on Mr. Nash's tomb-stone in the chancel of the church of Stratford: “Here resteth ye body of Thomas Nashe, Esq. He mar. Elizabeth the daugh. and heire of John Hall, Gent. He died April 4th, Ao. 1647, aged 53.” “Fata manent omnes; hunc non virtute carentem,   “Ut neque divitiis, abstulit atra dies. “Abstulit, at referet lux ultima. Siste, viator;   “Si peritura paras, per male parta peris.” The letters printed in Italicks are now obliterated. By his last will, which is in the Prerogative-Office, dated August 26, 1642, he bequeathed to his well beloved wife, Elizabeth Nash, and her assigns, for her life (in lieu of jointure and thirds), one messuage or tenement, with the appurtenances, situate in the Chapel Street in Stratford, then in the tenure and occupation of Joan Norman, widow; one meadow, known by the name of the Square Meadow, with the appurtenances, in the parish of old Stratford, lying near unto the great stone-bridge of Stratford; one other meadow with the appurtenances, known by the name of the Wash Meadow; one little meadow with the appurtenances, adjoining to the said Wash Meadow; and also all the tythes of the manor or lordship of Shottery. He devises to his kinsman Edward Nash, the son of his uncle George Nash of London, his heirs and assigns (inter alia), the messuage or tenement, then in his own occupation, called The New-Place, situate in the Chapel Street, in Stratford; together with all and singular houses, outhouses, barns, stables, orchards, gardens, easements, profits, or commodities, to the same belonging; and also four-yard land of arable land, meadow, and pasture, with the appurtenances, lying and being in the common fields of Old Stratford, with all the easements, profits, commons, commodities, and hereditaments, of the same four-yard lands belonging; then in the tenure, use, and occupation of him the said Thomas Nash; and one other messuage or tenement, with the appurtenances, situate in the parish of &lblank; , in London, and called or known by the name of The Wardrobe, and then in the tenure, use, and occupation of &lblank; Dickes. And from and after the death of his said wife, he bequeaths the meadows above named, and devised to her for life, to his said cousin Edward Nash, his heirs and assigns for ever. After various other bequests, he directs that one hundred pounds, at the least, be laid out in mourning gowns, cloaks, and apparel, to be distributed among his kindred and friends, in such manner as his executrix shall think fit. He appoints his wife Elizabeth Nash his residuary legatee, and sole executrix, and ordains Edmund Rawlins, William Smith, and John Easton, overseers of his will, to which the witnesses are John Such, Michael Jonson, and Samuel Rawlins. By a nuncupative codicil dated on the day of his death, April 4th, 1647, he bequeaths (inter alia) “to his mother Mrs. Hall fifty pounds; to Elizabeth Hathaway fifty pounds; to Thomas Hathaway fifty pounds; to Judith Hathaway ten pounds; to his uncle Nash and his aunt, his cousin Sadler and his wife, his cousin Richard Quiney and his wife, his cousin Thomas Quiney and his wife, twenty shillings each, to buy them rings.” The meadows which by his will he had devised to his wife for life, he by this codicil devises to her, her heirs and assigns, for ever, to the end that they may not be severed from her own land; and he “appoints and declares that the inheritance of his land given to his cousin Edward Nash should be by him settled, after his decease, upon his son Thomas Nash, and his heirs, and for want of such heirs then to remain and descend to his own right heirs.” It is observable that in this will the testator makes no mention of any child, and there is no entry of any issue of his marriage in the Register of Stratford; I have no doubt, therefore, that he died without issue. It has been supposed that the family of Miller of Hide-Hall, in the county of Herts, were descended from Dr. Hall's daughter Elizabeth; and to prove this fact, the following pedigree was transmitted some years ago by Mr. Whalley to Mr. Steevens: But this pedigree is founded on a mistake, and there is undoubtedly no lineal descendant of Shakspeare now living. The mistake was, the supposing that Sir Reginald Forster married a daughter of Mr. Thomas Nash and Elizabeth Hall, who had no issue, either by that gentleman or her second husband, Sir John Barnard. Sir Reginald Forster married the daughter of Edward Nash, Esq. of East Greenwich, in the county of Kent, cousin-german to Mr. Thomas Nash; and the pedigree ought to have been formed thus: That I am right in this statement, appears from the will of Edward Nash (see p. 619), and from the following inscription on a monument in the church of Stratford, erected some time after the year 1733, by Jane Norcliffe, the wife of William Norcliffe, Esq. and only daughter of Franklyn Miller, by Jane Forster: “P. M. S. “Beneath lye interred the body's of Sir Reginald Forster, Baronet, and dame Mary his wife, daughter of Edward Nash of East Greenwich, in the county of Kent,” &c. For this inscription I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. Mr. Davenport, Vicar of Stratford-upon-Avon. Reginald Forster, Esq. who lived at Greenwich, was created a Baronet, May 4, 1661. His son Reginald, who married Miss Nash, succeeded to the title on the death of his father, some time after the year 1679. Their only son, Reginald, was buried at Stratford, Aug. 10, 1685; and their daughter Jane, the wife of Francklyn Miller, Esq. was buried there in Feb. 1731–2. Mrs. Elizabeth Nash was married to her second husband, Sir John Barnard, at Billesley, about three miles from Stratford-upon-Avon, June 5, 1649, and was buried at Abington, in the county of Northampton, Feb. 17, 1669–70; and with her the family of our poet became extinct. Sir John Barnard of Abington, a small village about a mile from the town of Northampton, was created a Knight by King Charles II. Nov. 25, 1661. In 1671 he sold the manor and advowson of the church of Abington, which his ancestors had possessed for more than two hundred years, to William Thursby, Esq. Sir John Barnard was the eldest son of Baldwin Barnard, Esq. by Eleanor, daughter and co-heir of John Fulwood of Ford Hall in the county of Warwick, Esq. and was born in 1605. He first married Elizabeth, the daughter of Sir Clement Edmonds of Preston, in Northamptonshire, by whom he had four sons and four daughters. She dying in 1642, he married secondly our poet's grand-daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Nash, on the 5th of June 1649, at Billesley in Warwickshire, about three miles from Stratford-upon-Avon. If any of Shakspeare's manuscripts remained in his grand-daughter's custody at the time of her second marriage (and some letters at least she surely must have had), they probably were then removed to the house of her new husband at Abington. Sir Hugh Clopton, who was born two years after her death, mentioned to Mr. Macklin, in the year 1742, an old tradition that she had carried away with her from Stratford many of her grandfather's papers. On the death of Sir John Barnard they must have fallen into the hands of Mr. Edward Bagley, Lady Barnard's executor; and if any descendant of that gentleman be now living, in his custody they probably remain. Confiding in a pedigree transmitted by Mr. Whalley some years ago to Mr. Steevens, I once supposed that Mr. Rowe was inaccurate in saying that our poet's grand-daughter died without issue. But he was certainly right; and this lady was undoubtedly the last lineal descendant of Shakspeare. There is no entry, as I have already observed, in the register of Stratford, of any issue of hers by Mr. Nash; nor does he in his will mention any child, devising the greater part of his property between his wife and his kinsman, Edward Nash. That Lady Barnard had no issue by her second husband, is proved by the register of Abington, in which there is no entry of the baptism of any child of that marriage, though there are regular entries of the time when the several children of Sir John Barnard by his first wife were baptized. Lady Barnard died at Abington, and was buried there on the 17th of February, 1669-70; but her husband did not show his respect for her memory by a monument, or even an inscription of any kind. He seems not to have been sensible of the honourable allliance he had made. Shakspeare's grand-daughter would not, at this day, go to her grave without a memorial. By her last will, which I subjoin, she directs her trustee to sell her estate of New-place, &c. to the best bidder, and to offer it first to her cousin Mr. Edward Nash. How she then came to have any property in New-Place, which her first husband had devised to this very Edward Nash, does not appear; but I suppose that after the death of Mr. Thomas Nash she exchanged the patrimonial lands which he bequeathed to her, with Edward Nash and his son, and took New-Place, &c. instead of them. Sir John Barnard died at Abington, and was buried there on March 5th, 1673–4. On his tomb-stone, in the chancel of the church, is the following inscription: “Hic jacent exuviæ generosissimi viri Johannis Bernard, militis; patre, avo, abavo, tritavo, aliisque progenitoribus per ducentos et amplius annos hujus oppidi de Abingdon dominis, insignis: qui fato cessit undeseptuagesimo ætatis suæ anno, quinto nonas Martii, annoque a partu B. Virginis, MDCLXXIII.” Sir John Barnard having made no will, administration of his effects was granted on the 7th of November 1674, to Henry Gilbert of Locko in the county of Derby, who had married his daughter Elizabeth by his first wife, and to his two other surviving daughters; Mary Higgs, widow of Thomas Higgs of Colesborne, Esq. and Eleanor Cotton, the wife of Samuel Cotton, Esq. All Sir John Barnard's other children except the three above-mentioned died without issue. I know not whether any descendant of these be now living: but if that should be the case, among their papers may probably be found some fragment or other relative to Shakspeare; for by his grand-daughter's order, the administrators of her husband were entitled to keep possession of her house, &c. in Stratford, for six months after his death. The following is a copy of the will of this last descendant of our poet, extracted from the registry of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury: “In the name of God, Amen. I Dame Elizabeth Barnard, wife of Sir John Barnard of Abington in the county of Northampton, knight, being in perfect memory, (blessed be God!) and mindful of mortality, do make this my last will and testament in manner and form following: “Whereas by my certain deed or writing under my hand and seal, dated on or about the eighteenth day of April, 1653, according to a power therein mentioned, I the said Elizabeth have limited and disposed of all that my messuage with the appurtenances in Stratford-upon-Avon, in the county of Warwick, called the New-place, and all that four-yard land and an half in Stratford-Welcombe and Bishopton in the county of Warwick, (after the decease of the said Sir John Barnard, and me the said Elizabeth,) unto Henry Smith of Stratford aforesaid, Gent. and Job Dighton of the Middle Temple, London, Esq. since deceased, and their heirs; upon trust that they, and the survivor, and the heirs of such survivor, should bargain and sell the same for the best value they can get, and the money thereby to be raised to be employed and disposed of to such person and persons, and in such manner as I the said Elizabeth should by any writing or note under my hand, truly testified, declare and nominate; as thereby may more fully appear. Now my will is, and I do hereby signify and declare my mind and meaning to be, that the said Henry Smith, my surviving trustee, or his heirs, shall with all convenient speed after the decease of the said Sir John Barnard my husband, make sale of the inheritance of all and singular the premises, and that my loving cousin Edward Nash, Esq. shall have the first offer or refusal thereof, according to my promise formerly made to him: and the monies to be raised by such sale I do give, dispose of, and appoint the same to be paid and distributed, as is herein after expressed; that is to say, to my cousin Thomas Welles of Carleton, in the county of Bedford, Gent. the sum of fifty pounds, to be paid him within one year next after such sale: and if the said Thomas Wells shall happen to die before such time as his said legacy shall become due to him, then my desire is, that my kinsman Edward Bagley, citizen of London, shall have the sole benefit thereof. “Item, I do give and appoint unto Judith Hathaway, one of the daughters of my kinsman Thomas Hathaway, late of Stratford aforesaid, the annual sum of five pounds of lawful money of England, to be paid unto her yearly and every year, from and after the decease of the said survivor of the said Sir John Barnard and me the said Elizabeth, for and during the natural life of her the said Judith, at the two most usual feasts or days of payment in the year, videlicet, the feast of the annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Saint Michael the archangel, by equal portions, the first payment thereof to begin at such of the said feasts as shall next happen after the decease of the survivor of the said Sir John Barnard and me the said Elizabeth, if the said premises can be so soon sold; or otherwise so soon as the same can be sold: and if the said Judith shall happen to marry, and shall be minded to release the said annual sum of five pounds, and shall accordingly release and quit all her interest and right in and to the same after it shall become due to her, then and in such case, I do give and appoint to her the sum of forty founds in lieu thereof, to be paid unto her at the time of the executing of such release as aforesaid. “Item, I give and appoint unto Joan the wife of Edward Kent, and one other of the daughters of the said Thomas Hathaway, the sum of fifty pounds, to be likewise paid unto her within one year next after the decease of the survivor of the said Sir John Barnard and me the said Elizabeth, if the said premises can be so soon sold, or otherwise so soon as the same can be sold; and if the said Joan shall happen to die before the said fifty pounds shall be paid to her, then I do give and appoint the same unto Edward Kent the younger, her son, to be paid unto him when he shall attain the age of one-and-twenty years. “Item, I do also give and appoint unto him the said Edward Kent, son of the said John, the sum of thirty pounds, towards putting him out as an apprentice, and to be paid and disposed of to that use when he shall be fit for it. “Item, I do give or appoint and dispose of unto Rose, Elizabeth, and Susanna, three other of the daughters of my said kinsman Thomas Hathaway, the sum of forty pounds a-piece, to be paid unto every of them at such time and in such manner as the said fifty pounds before appointed to the said Joan Kent, their sister, shall become payable. “Item, All the rest of the monies that shall be raised by such sale as aforesaid, I give and dispose of unto my said kinsman Edward Bagley, except five pounds only, which I give and appoint to my said trustee Henry Smith for his pains; and if the said Edward Nash shall refuse the purchase of the said messuage and four-yard land and a half with the appurtenances, then my will and desire is, that the said Henry Smith or his heirs shall sell the inheritance of the said premises and every part thereof unto the said Edward Bagley, and that he shall purchase the same; upon this condition, nevertheless, that he the said Edward Bagley, his heirs, executors, or administrators, shall justly and faithfully perform my will and true meaning, in making due payment of all the several sums of money or legacies before mentioned, in such manner as aforesaid. And I do hereby declare my will and meaning to be that the executors or administrators of my said husband Sir John Barnard shall have and enjoy the use and benefit of my said house in Stratford, called the New-Place, with the orchards, gardens, and all other the appurtenances thereto belonging, for and during the space of six months next after the decease of him the said Sir John Barnard. “Item, I give and devise unto my kinsman, Thomas Hart, the son of Thomas Hart, late of Stratford-upon-Avon aforesaid, all that my other messuage or inn situate in Stratford-upon-Avon aforesaid, commonly called the Maidenhead, with the appurtenances, and the next house thereunto adjoining, with the barn belonging to the same, now or late in the occupation of Michael Johnson or his assigns, with all and singular the appurtenances; to hold to him the said Thomas Hart the son, and the heirs of his body; and for default of such issue, I give and devise the same to George Hart, brother of the said Thomas Hart, and to the heirs of his body; and for default of such issue to the right heirs of me the said Elizabeth Barnard for ever. “Item, I do make, ordain, and appoint my said loving kinsman Edward Bagley sole executor of this my last will and testament, hereby revoking all former wills; desiring him to see a just performance hereof, according to my true intent and meaning. In witness whereof I the said Elizabeth Barnard have hereunto set my hand and seal, the nine-and-twentieth day of January, Anno Domini, one thousand six hundred and sixty-nine. “Elizabeth Barnard. “Signed, sealed, published, and declared to be the last will and testament of the said Elizabeth Barnard, in the presence of “John Howes, Rector de Abington. “Francis Wickes. “Probatum fuit testamentum suprascriptum apud ædes Exonienses situat. in le Strand, in comitatu Middx. quarto die mensis Martij, 1669, coram venerabili viro Domino Egidio Sweete, milite et legum doctore, surrogato, &c. juramento Edwardi Bagley, unici executor. nominat. cui, &c. de bene, &c. jurat.”

Note return to page 529 7The eldest son of Joan Hart, our poet's sister. He was a player, and, I believe, father to Charles Hart, the celebrated tragedian. I have not found any entry in the register of the deaths of his brothers Thomas and Michael Hart.

Note return to page 530 8This gentleman was born in 1587, and was brother to Thomas Quiney, who married Shakspeare's youngest daughter. It does not appear when Thomas Quiney died. There is a defect in the register during the years 1642, 1643, and 1644; and another lacuna from March 17, to Nov. 18, 1663. Our poet's son-in-law probably died in the latter of those periods; for his wife, who died in Feb. 1661–2, in the register of burials for that year is described thus: “Judith, uxor Thomas Quiney.” Had her husband been then dead, she would have been denominated vidua.

Note return to page 531 9Probably the wife of Thomas Hart, who must have been married in or before the year 1633. The marriage ceremony was not performed at Stratford, there being no entry of it in the register.

Note return to page 532 1He was born in 1636.

Note return to page 533 3He was born in 1676, and was great grandson to Joan Hart.

Note return to page 534 4He was born in 1666, and was also great grandson to Joan Hart.

Note return to page 535 5He was born in 1695.

Note return to page 536 6This absurd mode of entry seems to have been adopted for the purpose of concealment rather than information; for by the omission of the Christian name, it is impossible to ascertain from the register who was meant. The person here described was, I believe, Anne, the widow of Shakspeare Hart, who died in 1747.

Note return to page 537 7He was born in 1700.

Note return to page 538 N. B. The terms book and ballad were anciently used to signify dramatick works, as well as any other forms of composition; while tragedy and comedy were titles very often bestowed on novels of the serious and the lighter kind. Steevens.

Note return to page 539 3Since this was written, the first volume, marked A, has been found. Malone.

Note return to page 540 4This article, within crotchets, is from vol. i. which (as Mr. Malone observes) has since been discovered. Steevens.

Note return to page 541 5This and the foregoing are perhaps the original works on which Shakspeare founded his play of Romeo and Juliet. Steevens.

Note return to page 542 6This play was reprinted in 1770 at Feversham, with a preface attributing it to Shakspeare. The collection of parallel passages which the editor has brought forward to justify his supposition, is such as will make the reader smile. The following is a specimen: Arden of Feversham, p. 74: “Fling down Endimion, and snatch him up.” Merchant of Venice, Act V. Sc. I.: “Peace, ho! the moon sleeps with Endymion.” Arden of Feversham, p. 87: “Let my death make amends for all my sin.” Much Ado About Nothing, Act IV. Sc. II.: “Death is the fairest cover for her shame.” Steevens.

Note return to page 543 7The last stanza of a poem entitled Mirrha the Mother of Adonis; or Lustes Prodegies, by William Barksted, 1607, has the following praise of Shakspeare's Venus and Adonis: “But stay, my muse, in thy own confines keepe,   “And wage not warre with so deere-lov'd a neighbor; “But, having sung thy day song, rest and sleepe,   “Preserve thy small fame and his greater favor. “His song was worthie merit, (Shakspeare hee) “Sung the faire blossome, thou the withered tree: “Laurel is due to him; his art and wit “Hath purchas'd it; cypres thy brow will fit.” Steevens.

Note return to page 544 8I suppose this to be Daniel's tragedy of Cleopatra. Simon Waterson was one of the printers of his other works. Steevens. Daniel's Cleopatra was published by Waterson in 1594; this entry therefore undoubtedly related to it. Malone.

Note return to page 545 9I conceive it to be the play that furnished Shakspeare with the materials which he afterwards worked up into another with the same title. Steevens.

Note return to page 546 1This might have been the very displeasing play mentioned in the epilogue to the second part of King Henry IV. Steevens. The earliest edition of this play now known to be extant, was printed in 1598. Of that edition I have a copy. This piece furnished Shakspeare with the outline of the two parts of King Henry IV. as well as with that of King Henry V. Malone.

Note return to page 547 2I suppose this to be the play on the same subject as that of our author, but written before it. Steevens.

Note return to page 548 3Query if The Winter's Tale. Steevens.

Note return to page 549 4This could not have been the work of Shakspeare, as the death of Jane Shore makes no part of his drama. Steevens. The play here entered, I believe to have been The true Tragedy of Richard the Third, which will be found appended to Shakspeare's drama in this edition. Boswell.

Note return to page 550 5Probably the play before that of Shakspeare. Steevens. Surely this must have been Shakspeare's Henry V. which, as well as Much Ado About Nothing, was printed in 1600, when this entry appears to have been made. See the Essay on the chronological order of Shakspeare's plays; article, As You Like It. Malone.

Note return to page 551 6This is ascribed to Shakspeare by the compilers of ancient catalogues. Steevens.

Note return to page 552 7Query, if Shakspeare's play, the first edition of which appeared in 1597. Steevens.

Note return to page 553 8Perhaps the songs on which the play with the same title was founded. It may, however, be the play itself. It was not uncommon to divide one dramatick piece, though designed for a single exhibition, into two parts. See the King John before that of Shakspeare. Seeevens.

Note return to page 554 9This was a play entitled, “When you see me you know me, or the famous Chronicle Historie of King Henrie the Eight,” &c. by Samuel Rowley. Printed for N. Butter, 1605. Malone.

Note return to page 555 1This is the King Lear before that of Shakspeare. Steevens.

Note return to page 556 2Query, if the play. Steevens.

Note return to page 557 3Perhaps this is Marston's comedy of What You Will. I have a copy of it dated 1607. What You Will, however, is the second title to Shakspeare's Twelfth-Night. Steevens. This was certainly Marston's play, for it was printed in 1607, by G. Eld, for T. Thorpe. Malone.

Note return to page 558 4The Merry Devil of Edmonton is mentioned in the Blacke Booke by T. M. 1604: “Give him leave to see The Merry Divel of Edmunton, or A Woman Kill'd with Kindnesse.” Steevens.

Note return to page 559 5Bound up in a volume of plays attributed to Shakspeare, and once belonging to King Charles II. but now in Mr. Garrick's collection. The initial letters at the end of this entry, sufficiently free Shakspeare from the charge of having been its author. Steevens.

Note return to page 560 6Query, if this was Shakspeare's King John, or some old romance like that of Richard Coeur de Lion. Steevens. It was undoubtedly The Famous Historie of George Lord Fauconbridge, a prose romance. I have an edition of it now before me printed for I. B. dated 1616. Malone.

Note return to page 561 7Bound up in a volume of plays attributed to Shakspeare, and once belonging to King Charles the Second. See Mr. Garrick's collection. Steevens.

Note return to page 562 8See the notes of Mr. Collins and Mr. Malone at the end of The Third Part of King Henry VI.

Note return to page 563 9From the year 1570 to the year 1629, when the playhouse in White Friars was finished, it appears that no less than seventeen theatres had been built.

Note return to page 564 1In the following list of early quartos, I have omitted those which appeared subsequently to the folio 1623, as they are admitted on all hands to be utterly worthless. The titles of the others I have given at full length where there was any disagreement among them, as far as I was enabled by Mr. Malone's collection. Those to which I have not had access, I have copied from Mr. Steevens's list, and marked them with an asterisk. Boswell.

Note return to page 565 2This is the first edition in which the scene of Richard's deposition was printed, and is the one which was followed by the folio 1623. Mr. Kemble has a copy [now in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire], printed in 1608, in the title page of which no mention is made of that additional scene, though found there, and, except that variation in the title-page, is the very same as the one described above. The words were probably thought offensive by Mr. Tilney, the Master of the Revels, and ordered to be omitted.—Mr. Malone's MS.

Note return to page 566 2This is in Mr. Malone's collection, but the title is transcribed from Mr. Capell's list. Boswell.

Note return to page 567 3In Mr. Malone's collection there are two copies of this first edition. In one of them he has the following note: “In this copy, signature E has only the ordinary quantity of leaves, namely four. The publisher, finding he had omitted somewhat, cancelled the two latter, (viz. E 3, and E 4), reprinted them in a different manner, and added a fifth leaf in order to get in the omitted lines. This is the only difference between the two copies.” The omission spoken of, is the whole of the first scene of the third act. Boswell.

Note return to page 568 4This edition is not in Mr. Malone's collection, but I have copied his transcript of the title. Boswell.

Note return to page 569 5In this copy the poet's name is spelt Shak-speare, without the middle e. This is the only instance I have met with. Boswell.

Note return to page 570 6Mr. Malone denied the existence of this edition. See Preliminary Remarks to Othello, vol. ix. p. 215. Boswell.

Note return to page 571 6This play, precisely the same with the 4to. of 1600, appears as it was first altered by Shakspeare from the original drama of Greene, Peele, and Marlowe; great part of which is here preserved. He afterwards revised and improved it, as we have it in the folio. Ritson. Mr. Ritson was wrong in both of his positions. The play in both of the editions which he mentions, does not appear, as it was altered, but as the original before it was altered by Shakspeare: nor are they precisely the same; for I learn from Mr. Malone's collation that there are upwards of thirty variations; and in the elder copy, the metre is frequently confounded by the end of one line being printed at the beginning of another. Boswell.

Note return to page 572 8It was printed in 1619, as appears from an edition of Pericles, printed by Pavier in that year [vide supra], the first sheet of which begins with signature R; the last sheet of this is Q. Malone.

Note return to page 573 9It seems, from such a partnership, that no single publisher was at that time willing to risk his money on a complete collection of our author's plays. Steevens. It rather rose from several of those booksellers having a property in the quarto plays which were here reprinted. Malone. Every possible adulteration has of late years been practised in fitting up copies of this book for sale. When leaves have been wanting, they have been reprinted with battered types, and foisted into vacancies, without notice of such defects and the remedies applied to them. When the title has been lost, a spurious one has been fabricated, with a blank space left for the head of Shakspeare, afterwards added from the second, third, or fourth impression. To conceal these frauds, thick vermillion lines have been usually drawn over the edges of the engravings, which would otherwise have betrayed themselves when let into a supplemental page, however craftily it was lined at the back, and discoloured with tobacco-water till it had assumed the true jaune antique. Sometimes leaves have been inserted from the second folio, and, in a known instance, the entire play of Cymbeline; the genuine date at the end of it [1632] having been altered into 1623. Since it was thought advantageous to adopt such contrivances while the book was only valued at six or seven guineas, now it has reached its present enormous price, may not artifice be still more on the stretch to vamp up copies for the benefit of future catalogues and auctions?—Shakspeare might say of those who profit by him, what Antony has observed of Enobarbus— “&lblank; my fortunes have “Corrupted honest men.” Mr. Garrick, about forty years ago, paid only 1l. 16s. to Mr. Payne at the Mews Gate for a fine copy of this folio.—After the death of our Roscius, it should have accompanied his collection of old plays to the British Museum; but had been taken out of his library, and has not been heard of since. Here I might particularize above twenty other copies; but as their description would not always meet the wishes or interests of their owners, it may be as well omitted. Perhaps the original impression of the book did not amount to more than 250; and we may suppose that different fires in London had their share of them. Before the year 1649 they were so scarce, that (as Mr. Malone has observed) King Charles I. was obliged to content himself with a folio of 1632, at present in my possession. Of all volumes, those of popular entertainment are soonest injured. It would be difficult to name four folios that are oftener found in dirty and mutilated condition, than this first assemblage of Shakspeare's plays—God's Revenge against Murder—The Gentleman's Recreation—and Johnson's Lives of the Highwaymen. Though Shakspeare was not, like Fox the Martyrologist, deposited in churches, to be thumbed by the congregation, he generally took post on our hall tables; and that a multitude of his pages have “their effect of gravy,” may be imputed to the various eatables set out every morning on the same boards. It should seem that most of his readers were so chary of their time, that (like Pistol, who gnaws his leek and swears all the while) they fed and studied at the same instant. I have repeatedly met with thin flakes of piecrust between the leaves of our author. These unctuous fragments, remaining long in close confinement, communicated their grease to several pages deep on each side of them. It is easy enough to conceive how such accidents might happen;—how aunt Bridget's mastication might be disordered at the sudden entry of the Ghost into the Queen's closet, and how the half-chewed morsel dropped out of the gaping 'Squire's mouth, when the visionary Banquo seated himself in the chair of Macbeth. Still, it is no small eulogium on Shakspeare, that his claims were more forcible than those of hunger.—Most of the first folios now extant, are known to have belonged to ancient families resident in the country. Since our breakfasts have become less gross, our favourite authors have escaped with fewer injuries; not that (as a very nice friend of mine observes) those who read with a coffee-cup in their hands, are to be numbered among the contributors to bibliothecal purity. I claim the merit of being the first commentator on Shakspeare who strove, with becoming seriousness, to account for the frequent stains that disgrace the earliest folio edition of his plays, which is now become the most expensive single book in our language; for what other English volume without plates, and printed since the year 1600, is known to have sold, more than once, for thirty-five pounds, fourteen shillings? Steevens. It has become still more expensive. Ipse miserrimus gave a much larger sum at Mr. Kemble's sale; but I could not bring myself to a cold calculation of the value of a copy which was at once a memorial of Shakspeare and of Kemble. Boswell.

Note return to page 574 1If any thing is gained by preserving the old spelling in Heminge and Condell's dedication and preface, it should be strictly adhered to. It has hitherto been printed, but not correctly, from the second folio. Boswell.

Note return to page 575 2Country hands reach forth milk, &c. and many nations—that had not gummes and incense, obtained their requests with a leavened Cake.] This seems to have been one of the common-places of dedication in Shakspeare's age. We find it in Morley's Dedication of a Book of Songs to Sir Robert Cecil, 1595: “I have presumed” (says he) “to make offer of these simple compositions of mine, imitating (right honourable) in this the customs of the old world, who wanting incense to offer up to their gods, made shift insteade thereof to honour them with milk.” The same thought (if I recollect right) is again employed by the players in their dedication of Fletcher's plays, folio, 1647. Malone.

Note return to page 576 3&lblank; as where &lblank;] i. e. whereas. Malone.

Note return to page 577 3Copied by W. B. in verse, before The Bondman.

Note return to page 578 4This edition of our author's plays is scarcer than even the folio 1623. Being published towards the end of 1664, most of the copies were destroyed in the fire of London, 1666. Steevens.

Note return to page 579 5For correcting the press and making an index to Mr. Rowe's 12mo. edition.

Note return to page 580 6For assistance to Mr. Pope in correcting the press.

Note return to page 581 7For the same services.

Note return to page 582 8For correcting the sheets of Mr. Pope's 12mo.

Note return to page 583 9Of Mr. Theobald's edition no less than 12,860 have been printed.

Note return to page 584 1From the late Mr. Tonson's books it appears, that Dr. Johnson received copies of his edition for his subscribers, the first cost of which was 375l. and afterwards 105l. in money. Total 480l. Malone.

Note return to page 585 2I have since discovered, from an ancient MS. note in a copy of the folio 1623, belonging to Messieurs White, booksellers in Fleet Street, that the original price of this volume was—one pound. Steevens.

Note return to page 586 3And is not worth three shillings. See an account of it, in the Preface to the present edition [Mr. Malone's, 1790]. Malone. See, however, the Advertisement prefixed to this edition [1793]. Steevens.

Note return to page 587 4In a manuscript diary that lately passed through the hands of Francis Douce, Esq. there is the following entry on the 12th of June, 1593: “For the Survay of Fraunce with the Venus and Adhonay pr. Shakspere xii d.

Note return to page 588 5It appears from an epistle prefixed to Greene's Arcadia, that The Arraignment of Paris was written by George Peele, the author of King David and fair Bethsabe, &c. 1599.

Note return to page 589 5See the preceding extracts from the books at Stationers' Hall.

Note return to page 590 6Fair Em,] In Mr. Garrick's Collection is a volume, formerly belonging to King Charles II. which is lettered on the back, “SHAKESPEARE, Vol. I.” This volume consists of Fair Em, The Merry Devil, &c. Mucedorus, &c. There is no other authority for ascribing Fair Em to our author.

Note return to page 591 7The existence of this edition has been doubted. Reed.

Note return to page 592 8“Garrick has produced a detestable English Opera, which is crowded by all true lovers of their country. To mark the opposition to Italian Operas, it is sung by some cast singers, two Italians, and a French girl, and the Chapel boys; and to regale us with sense, it is Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, which is forty times more nonsensical than the worst translation of any Italian opera-books.” Letter from Lord Orford to Richard Bentley, Esq. Feb. 23, 1755. See his Lordship's works, vol. v. p. 312.

Note return to page 593 9This play is a pasticio formed from Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It, and Love's Labour's Lost. Boswell.

Note return to page 594 2[This writer has been so often referred to in these pages, that it would have been an act of injustice not to have preserved Mr. Malone's testimony in his favour. Boswell.]

Note return to page 595 2“Transmissum autem nobis est illud epitaphium a viro perhumano, Johanne Alberico, vulgo Aubrey, Armigero, hujus collegii olim generoso commensali, jam vero è Regio Societate Londini; viro inquam, tam bono, tam benigno, ut publico solum commodo, nec sibi omnino, natus esse videatur.” His. et Antiq. Univ. Oxon. l. ii. p. 297.

Note return to page 596 3Letter from Wood to Aubrey, dated Jan. 16, 1689–90. MSS. Aubrey. No. 15, in Mus. Ashmol. Oxon.—Yet in the preface to his History of the University of Oxford, he describes Dr. Wallis as a man—“eruditione pariter et humanitate præstans.” “Wood's account of South (says Mr. Warton) is full of malicious reflections and abusive stories: the occasion of which was this. Wood, on a visit to Dr. South, was complaining of a very painful and dangerous suppression of urine; upon which South in his witty manner, told him, that, ‘if he could not make water he must make earth.’ Wood was so provoked at this unseasonable and unexpected jest, that he went home in a passion, and wrote South's Life.” Life of Ralph Bathurst, p. 184. Compare Wood's Athen. Oxon. ii. 1041.

Note return to page 597 5Specimen of a Critical History of the Celtick Religion, &c. p. 122.

Note return to page 598 6“With incredible satisfaction I have perused your Natural History of the county of Surrey, and greatly admire both your industry in undertaking so profitable a work, and your judgment in the several observations you have made.” Letter from John Evelyn, Esq. to Mr. Aubrey, prefixed to his Antiquities of Surrey.

Note return to page 599 7Hobbes, whose life Aubrey wrote, was born in 1588, Milton in 1608, Dryden in 1630, Ray in 1628, Evelyn in 1621, Ashmole in 1616, Sir W. Dugdale in 1606, Dr. Bathurst in 1620, Bishop Skinner in 1591, Dr. Gale about 1630, Sir William D'Avenant in 1606; Sir John Denham in 1615, Sir Bennet Hoskyns (the son of John Hoskyns, Ben Jonson's poetical father, who was born in 1566,) about 1600, and Mr. Jos. Howe in 1611.

Previous section