in a question in which it is exceedingly difficult to discriminate between the imitations of forgery, aui the habitual phrases and current knowledge of a real person :—

[Passages from old and modern writings. ]

"I have found your Lordship already so favourable and affectionate unto me, that I shall be still hereafter desirous to acquaint you with what concerns me, and bold to ask your advice and counsel."-Southampton's Letter to Lord Keeper Williams: Malone's Inquiry, 1796.

"The time of trouble."-Psalm xxvii.

"Never given cause of displeasure."-Petition, 1589: Collier's New Facts.

"The Roscius of our age."-Fuller.

"When Roscius was an actor at Rome."-Hamlet. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action."— Hamlet.

"Clepe to your conseil a few of youre frendes that ber especial.”—Chaucer.

"Dearest Friend."-Ireland's forged Letter of Southamp ton to Shakspere.

"At sundrie times and in divers manners."-Ep. to Hebrews.

"I suspect that both he [Heninges] and Burbage were Shakspeare's countrymen."-Malone's History of the Stage. "Who have no other means whereby to maintain their wives and families."-Petition of 1596: Collier's Annals. "The widows and orphans of players, who are paid by the sharers."-Estimate, &c. : Collier's New Facts.

We have stated frankly and without reserve the objections to the authenticity of this document which have presented themselves to our mind. It is better to state these fully and fairly than to "hint a doubt." Looking at the decided character of the external evidence as to the discovery, and taking into consideration the improbability of a spurious paper having been smuggled into the company of the Bridgewater documents, we are inclined to confide in it. But, apart from the interesting character of the letter, and the valuable testimony which it gives to the nature of the intercourse between Southampton and Shakspere-"my especial friend"— '-we might lay it aside with reference to its furnishing any new materials for the life of the poet, with the exception of the statement that he and Burbage were "both of one county." Confiding in it, as we are anxious to do, we accept it as a valuable illustration of that life. We have on several occasions referred to the letter of H. S.; and in this examination we can have no wish to neutralize our own inferences from its genuineness. These, however, in this Riography, have reference only to the assertion, 1st, That Burbage and Shakspere 2nd. That were of one county and almost of one town: this was a conjecture made by Malone. there was deep friendship between Southampton and Shakspere: this is an old traditionary belief supported by the dedications of Venus and Adonis and the Lucrece. 3rd. That Shakspere left the stage previous to 1608: this differs little from the prevailing opinion, that he quitted it before 1605 founded upon his name not appearing to a play of Ben Jonson in that year.

THERE is a memorandum existing (to which we shall hereafter more particu. larly advert), by Thomas Greene, a contemporary of Shakspere, residing at Stratford, which, under the date of November 17th, 1614, has this record My cousin Shakspeare coming yesterday to town, I went to see him how he did." We cite this memorandum here, as an indication of Shakspere's habit of occasionally visiting London; for Thomas Greene was then in the capital, with the intent of opposing the project of an inclosure at Stratford. The frequency of Shakspere's visits to London would essentially depend upon the nature of his connexion with the theatres. He was a permanent shareholder, as we have seen, at the Blackfriars; and no doubt at the Globe also. His interests as a sharer might be diligently watched over by his fellows; and he might only

have visited London when he had a new play to bring forward, the fruit of his leisure in the country. But until he disposed of his wardrobe and other properties, more frequent demands might be made upon his personal attendance than if he were totally free from the responsibilities belonging to the charge of such an embarrassing stock in trade. Mr. Collier has printed a memorandum in the handwriting of Edward Alleyn, dated April 1612, of the payment of various sums "for the Blackfryers," amounting to 5991. 6s. 8d. Mr. Collier adds, "To whom the money was paid is nowhere stated; but, for aught we know, it was to Shakespeare himself, and just anterior to his departure from London." The memorandum is introduced with the observation, "It seems very likely, from evidence now for the first time to be adduced, that Alleyn became the purchaser of our great dramatist's interest in the theatre, properties, wardrobe, and stock of the Blackfriars." Certainly the document itself says nothing about properties wardrobe, and stock. It is simply as follows:

More than half of the entire sum is paid "again for the lease." If the estimate "For avoiding of the Playhouse," &c.* be not rejected as an authority, the conjecture of Mr. Collier that the property purchased by Alleyn belonged to Shakspere is wholly untenable; for the Fee, valued at a thousand pounds, was the property of Burbage, and to the owner of the Fee would be paid the sum for the lease. Subsequent memoranda by Alleyn show that he paid rent for the Blackfriars, and expended sums upon the building-collateral proofs that it was not Shakspere's personal property that he bought in April 1612. There is distinct evidence furnished by another document that Shakspere was not a resident in London in 1613; for in an indenture executed by him on the 10th of March in that year, for the purchase of a dweiling-house in the precinct of the Blackfriars, he is described as "William Shakespeare of Stratforde Upon Avon in the countie of Warwick, gentleman;" whilst his fellow John Hemyng, who is a party to the same deed, is described as "of London, gentleman." From the situation of the property it would appear to have been bought either as an appurtenance to the theatre, or for some protection of the interests of the sharers. In the deed of 1602, Shakspere is also described as of Stratford-upon-Avon. It is natural that he should be so described, in a deed for the purchase of land at Stratford; but upon the same principle, had he been a resident in London in 1613, he would have been described as of London in a deed for the purchase of property in London. Yet we also look upon this conveyance as evidence that Shakspere had in March 1613 not wholly severed himself from his interest in the theatre. He is in London at the signing of the deed, attending, probably, to the duties which still devolved upon him as a sharer in the Blackfriars. He is not a resident in London; he has come

But we have no evidence that he Certainly the evidence that he sold it to Edward attempt to fix the date of Shakspere's departure

to town, as Thomas Greene describes, in 1614.
sold his theatrical property at all.
Alleyn may be laid aside in any
from London.

In the November of 1611 two of Shakspere's plays were acted at Whitenall. The entries of their performance are thus given in the Book of the Revels :'

"By the Kings
Players:
The Kings
Players:

Hallomas nyght was presented att Whithall before ye Kinge
Mate a play called the Tempest.

The 5th of Nouember; A play called ye winters nighte
Tayle."

That The Tempest was a new play when thus performed, it would be difficult to affirm, upon this entry alone. In the earlier part of the reign of James we have seen that old plays of Shakspere were performed before the King; but at that period all his plays would be equally novel to the Monarch and to the Court. According to the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, the performances at Court of the King's players appear to have been so numerous after the year of the accession, that it would be necessary to add the attraction of

novelty even to Shakspere's stock plays. At the Christmas and Shrovetide of 1604-5 there were thirteen performances by Shakspere's company; in 1605-6, ten plays by the same; in October, 1606, upon the occasion of the visit of the King of Denmark, three plays; in 1606-7, twenty-two plays; in 1607-8 there is no record of payments, but in 1608-9 there are twelve plays; in 1610-11 fifteen plays; and in 1611-12 (the holidays to which we are now more particularly referring) there were six performances by Shakspere's company before the King, and sixteen by the same company "before the Prince's Highness." But, however probable it may be that the players would be ready with novelties for the Court, especially when other companies performed constantly before the royal family, we have a distinct record that the plays of Shakspere held their ground, even though the Court was familiar with them. At the Easter of 1618, Twelfth Night and The Winter's Tale were performed before the King. We are not, therefore, warranted in concluding that in 1611 The Tempest was a new play; although we have evidence that The Winter's Tale was then a new play. Dr. Forman saw The Winter's Tale at the Globe on the 15th of May, 1611; and he describes it with a minuteness which would make it appear that he had not seen it before. This is not conclusive; but in 1623 The Winter's Tale is entered in the Office-Book of the Master of the Revels as an old play. formerly allowed of by Sir George Bucke." Sir George's term of office commenced in 1610. This fixes the date with tolerable accuracy, and shows that it was not an old play when performed at Court on the 5th of November, 1611. There is a passage in the play which might be implied to refer to the great event of which that day was the anniversary:

:

"If I could find example

Of thousands that had struck anointed kings

And flourish'd after, I'd not do't: but since

Nor brass, nor stone, nor parchment, bears not one,

Let villainy itself forswear't."

But there was a more recent example of the fate of one who had struck an anointed king. Henry the Fourth of France was stabbed by Ravaillac on the 14th of May, 1610; and certainly the terrible end of the assassin was a warning for villainy itself" to forswear such a crime. If The Tempest and The Winter's Tale, and probably Cymbeline also, belong to this epoch-and we believe that they were separated by a very short interval-we have the most delightful evidence of the perfect healthfulness of Shakspere's mind at this period of his life. To the legendary tales upon which the essentially romantic drama is built, he brought all the graces of his poetry and all the calm reflectiveness of his mature understanding. Beauty and wisdom walked together as twin sisters.

The Book of the Revels, 1611-12, which thus shows us that the graces of Perdita and the charms of Prospero had shed their influence over the courtly throngs of Whitehall, also informs us that on Twelfth Night the Prince's Masque' was performed. In the margin there is this entry: "This day the King and Prince with divers of his noblemen did run at the ring for a prize