that year it is evident that he was an actor of some eminence, and that he was employed in adapting old plays of contemporary or earlier authors to the existing taste of the public. We learn this from the often quoted passage in Green and Chettle's pamphlet, a passage full of most admirable meaning in respect of the early history of Shakespeare; and which, of itself, might serve to shew how wide of the truth is the assertion of Steevens respecting the extreme penury of our information.

In 1593, he published his Venus and Adonis, and this poem, which is one of singular beauty, though in some parts too voluptuous, he calls the "first heir of his invention," which must mean that he had composed no distinct work before it.

But these dates leave unaccounted for three or four years at least of his life; and we have no certain information under what circumstances, in the detail, he left Stratford, where he had father and mother, wife and children, brother and sister; whether with their consent or without it, whether furnished with money by his father, for there is little reason to suppose that he could have much of his own, or coming without resources, to see what such a place of universal concourse as London would afford him. It might be, and perhaps it is as reasonable a conjecture as any other, that the whole was matter of family arrangement and consent; that Stratford, at the best, was but a poor field for the exertions of one who had the eminent talents and the scholarship which he possessed, that it was rendered an undesirable residence for him by the exasperation of a powerful neighbour, if indeed it was possible to stand before that exasperation; and that the best course which, on the whole, he could take, was to transfer himself to London, and either with an immediate view to a connection with the theatres, or trusting

himself to the chapter of accidents, see what would happen to him.

All this is but uncertain speculation: but if I had perfect confidence in the papers which Mr. Collier has printed from the remains of Lord Ellesmere, at Bridgewater House,* I should say that the presumptive proof is strong that he had gone to London with consent and design, and that he had at once become connected with that which was the most popular of the London theatrical companies of the time. For one of these documents is dated in November, 1589, and at that time it appears from it that Shakespeare was not only an actor at the Black Friars Theatre, but was a sharer or proprietor in it. A sight of the original might at once remove any shade of doubt which may rest on this paper; but, as it stands, I cannot but feel some hesitation in accepting it as evidence. There is no doubt that it accords very well with the general state of theatrical affairs in the month of November, 1589, and so far it is open to no suspicion; but, beside some other suspicious circumstances, it comes accompanied with a letter which purports to be from the Earl of Southampton to Lord Ellesmere, which bears upon it strong marks of being a modern fabrication.

Having stated an opinion unfavourable to the genuineness of this document, which of all the papers brought from the stores at Bridgewater House is the most important, it is right that some of the grounds should be shewn on which I hesitate to yield to it an implicit credence. The nature of it is this: there were attempts at that period to put down the theatres; this document is a certificate that sixteen persons named, of whom Shakespeare is one, being all sharers in the Black Friars Theatre, "have never given cause of displeasure in that they have brought into their plays matters of state and * New Facts regarding the Life of Shakespeare, 12mo. 1835.

religion, unfitt to be handled by them or to be presented before lewde spectators." I confess this sounds to me not like the phrase in which a genuine certificate of that time would be conceived, but very like what fifty years ago would be thought a good imitation of that phrase. The want of signature and superscription is another ground of suspicion; but the suspicion is greatly strengthened by the difficulty of reconciling positions in this document with what is known from other sources concerning some of the persons who are named in it. Richard Burbage, for one; in 1589 he seems not to have been more than nineteen, for the time of his birth cannot well be thrown back farther than to 1570, so that though he might be an actor he would hardly be a proprietor. It be said that he stands here in virtue of his relation to his father, but what shall we say of another name, Nicholas Towley. One of the best established facts in the history of the actors in Shakespeare's plays is that Towley was an apprentice of Richard Burbage,* that is, an apprentice of a man who was himself but nineteen and possibly less in 1589, and yet a sharer in the theatre. Then take the name of William Kemp. The facts of the life of this actor have been very carefully examined by Mr. Dyce, and it would appear that at the date of this certificate he belonged to Alleyn's company, and did not join the Black Friars' till about 1594.+ That Peele should be amongst them is also a remarkable circumstance for a reason given by Mr. Collier himself.

may

It is not therefore without some hesitation that this paper ought to be admitted in proof that by the time Shakespeare was twenty-five years of age he had not only obtained a fellowship in a company of players, but was become one of the

* Boswell's Malone, vol. ii., p. 485.

+ Kemp's Nine Daies Wonder; Ed. Dyce, Introduction, p. vi.

New Facts, p. 13.

leading and principal persons among them, a sharer or proprietor in the principal theatre in London.

It is a curious circumstance, which has hitherto remained unnoticed, that a few years later than the time when Shakespeare took what is generally believed to have been an abrupt leave of his family and friends at Stratford, we have authentic information that one of the Sadlers actually did so, and proceeded without a plan to London. This was John Sadler, a nephew as is believed of Hamlet Sadler, and certainly brother-in-law of a Quiney who was brother of Shakespeare's sonin-law of that name. The father of this John Sadler was a person of good substance there, having had, according to the relation of his grand-daughter, Mrs. Walker, 400l. a year, which by his generous living he reduced to 80l. He had found out a marriage for his son, and, as Mrs. Walker tells the story, "provided him good clothes, a good horse, and money in his purse, and sent him to make his addresses to the gentlewoman in the country. But he, considering well how difficult a married condition was like to prove, instead of going a wooing joined himself to the carrier and came to London, where he had never been before, and sold his horse in Smithfield; and having no acquaintance in London to recommend or assist him, he went from street to street and house to house, asking if they wanted an apprentice, and though he met with many discouraging scorns and a thousand denials, he went till he light on Mr. Brooksbank, a grocer in Bucklersbury." Stratford adventurers of this class may be deemed fortunate. Shakespeare acquires wealth as well as undying reputation. Sadler is entertained in Mr. Brooksbank's service, sets up in due time as a druggist or grocer in Bucklersbury, then the principal seat of the trade and obtained before he died considerable wealth.*

* See The Holy Life of Mrs. Elizabeth Walker, late wife of A. W., D.D.,

To revert to the document which is of so great importance in regard to the opinion which may be formed respecting that principal event in the life of the poet-his leaving Stratford and settling in London-it is to be observed that it was found, together with others of the like nature, in papers of Lord Chancellor Egerton. The right determining of the question of the genuineness of this document would be influenced by the opinion which might be formed concerning the rest; and upon these, I venture to make the following observations:

The first of them purports to be an ordinance of the corporation of London, at the time when Leonard Haliday was Lord Mayor, 1605. "Wheras Kemp, Armyn, and others, players at the Black Friars, have again not forborne to bring upon their stage one or more of the worshipful aldermen of the City of London, to their great scandall, and to the lessening of their authority, the Lords of the right honorable the Privy Council are besought to call the said players before them and to enquire into the same, that order may be taken to remedy the abuse, either by putting down or removing the said theatre."* There is no doubt that Kemp and Armine were comic actors, whose services would be put in requisition when the company at the Black Friars meant to burlesque the aldermen of London, or any of them; but it may be doubted whether they were the names to be put forward in a formal communication from the City to the Privy Council, and that the complaint should not rather have been made against those who were the heads of the company, such as Burbage, Fletcher, and Shakespeare. In such a city resolution we should also, I think, have found rector of Fyfield, in Essex, 8vo. 1690. Mrs. Walker was Sadler's daughter, and great part of the book consists of extracts from her old manuscript remains.

*Collier's New Facts, p. 17.