which had been left in unregarded darkness by the commentators who had preceded him. The sole fault of these explanatory notes (if such, indeed, can be deemed a fault) is their redundancy, and their recurrence in cases where their aid seems to be unnecessary. Mr. Singer and I may occasionally differ in our opinions respecting the text which he has adopted; but, in these instances of our dissent, it is fully as probable that I may be wrong as he. I feel, in short, confident, on the whole, that Mr. Singer is now advancing, not to claim (for to claim is inconsistent with his modesty), but to obtain, a high place among the editors of Shakspeare; and to have his name enrolled with the names of those who have been the chief benefactors of the reader of our transcendent Poet. NEW FACTS REGARDING THE LIFE OF SHAKSPEARE. So little is known of the personal history of Shakspeare, that the reader may be gratified to learn the results of researches lately made by J. Payne Collier, F. S. A., among the manuscripes preserved at Bridgewater House, and lately published by him in a letter addressed to Thomas Amyot, F. R. S. They relate principally to Shakspeare's pecuniary circumstances: a few passages of little moment, as respects our purpose, are omitted. MY DEAR AMYOT, In the "History of English Dramatic Poetry and the Stage," I remarked that," on looking back to the life of Shakspeare, the first observation that must be made is, that so few facts are extant regarding him;" and Steevens, the most acute, and perhaps the most learned, of his commentators, stated, long before, that "all that is known with any degree of certainty concerning Shakspeare isthat he was born at Stratford upon Avon-married and had children there-went to London, where he commenced actor, and wrote poems and plays returned to Stratford, made his will, died, and was buried." The truth undoubtedly is, that there are scarcely any of his distinguished contemporaries, regarding the events of whose lives we are not better informed. I supplied a few novel particulars in the work from which I have already quoted, and I am now about to add others, with which I have since become acquainted, of a most authentic kind, and of considerable importance. I should begin by stating that the most interesting of them are derived from the manuscripts of Lord Ellesmere, whose name is, of course, well known to every reader of our history, as keeper of the great seal to Queen Elizabeth, and lord chancellor to James I. They are preserved at Bridgewater House; and Lord Francis Egerton gave me instant and unrestrained access to them, with permission to make use of any literary or historical information I could discover. The Rev. H. J. Todd had been there before me, and had classed some of the documents and correspondence; but large bundles of papers, ranging in point of date between 1581, when Lord Ellesmere was made solicitor-general, and 1616, when he retired from the office of lord chancellor, remained unexplored, and it was evident that many of them had never been opened from the time when, perhaps, his own hands tied them together. Among these, in a most unpromising heap, chiefly of legal documents, I met with most of the new facts respecting Shakspeare, which are the occasion of my present letter. I shall accompany the statement of them with other illustrative information, relying upon your love for literary antiquarianism to allow for any false importance which my zeal in the pursuit of such matters may attach to comparative trifles to me it seems impossible to consider any point, even remotely connected with the history and character of our great Dramatist, a trifle. To make the matter more intelligible, I must carry you back to the period when our drama was first represented in buildings constructed for the purpose. The most ancient of these were "the Theatre" and "the Curtain" in Shoreditch, which I imagine were built about the year 1570. The Blackfriars playhouse (where, in the winter, Shakspeare's dramas were acted, the performances at the Globe, which was open to the sky, being necessarily confined to the spring, summer, and autumn) was erected by James Burbage, the father of Richard Burbage, in 1576. As early as 1579, the city authorities endeavored to dislodge the players from this place of refuge, to which they had been driven by the refusal of the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council, to allow dramatic representations within the boundaries of their jurisdiction. The Blackfriars was supposed to be a privileged precinct, to which the power of the lord mayor did not extend, the exemption being derived from times when the site was occupied by the dwelling and grounds of a religious fraternity. In 1579, the corporation endeavored to establish a right of executing process there, and of intruding a regular police. Certain inhabitants of the Blackfriars also presented a petition to the privy council at the same date, which, perhaps, led that body to require the opinion of the two chief justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, Sir Christopher Wray and Sir James Dyer, upon the disputed question. Their decision is among the papers of Lord Ellesmere, and, without quoting it, for it affords no information, it may be stated that it was in favor of the claim of the city magistrates. Notwithstanding this powerful support, it is quite clear that no step was taken founded upon the opinion of these great lawyers, and that James Burbage and his associates continued their performances at the Blackfriars theatre. They were no doubt backed by the powerful interest of the Earl of Leicester, who had obtained for them the patent of the 7th of May, 1574; and the following is a copy of the order issued in their behalf by the privy council, with which I have only recently been made acquainted :— "At the Court 23rd of December 1579. "It is ordered that the Playeres of the Erle of Leycestre be not restrained, nor in any wise molested in the exercise of their qualitye at the Blackfryars or elswhere throughout the realme of England, so that they be enabled the better to performe before her Maiestie for her solace and recreation this Xtenmas." It is not likely that Shakspeare joined James Burbage's company until seven or eight years subsequent to 1579: he came to London for that purpose in 1586 or 1587, according to the most probable conjecture, and did not begin to write for the stage, even by the alteration of older plays, until 1590 or 1591. The earliest date at which his name has hitherto been mentioned in connection with the Blackfriars theatre, is 1596, in a petition to the privy council, which I first printed in the "History of Dramatic Poetry," i., 298; but the MSS. at Bridgewater House now enable me to furnish, not only the name of Shakspeare, but the names of the whole company of sharers seven years earlier, and only two or three years after our great Dramatist made his first appearance in the metropolis. Shakspeare, in November, 1589, had made such way in his profession, as to establish himself a sharer with fifteen others, eleven of whose names precede his in the list, and only four follow it. They stand thus, and the enumeration is on other accounts remarkable : James Burbage. Thomas Greene. Robert Wilson. John Taylor. Anthony Wadeson. Thomas Pope. George Peele. Augustine Phillips. Nicholas Towley. William Shakespeare. William Kempe. William Johnson. Baptist Goodall. This information seems to me to give a sufficient contradiction to the idle story of Shakspeare having commenced his career by holding horses at the playhouse door: had such been the fact, he would hardly have risen to the rank of a sharer in 1589, as it indisputably appears he was, on the authority of the subsequent document, which must have been transmitted to Lord Ellesmere with others of which I shall speak hereafter. "These are to certifie your right Honble Lordships that her Maiesties poore Playeres, James Burbadge, Richard Burbadge, John Laneham, Thomas Greene, Robert Wilson, John Taylor, Anth. Wadeson, Thomas Pope, George Peele, Augustine Phillipps, Nicholas Towley, William Shakespeare, William Kempe, William Johnson, Baptiste Goodale, and Robert Armyn, being all of them sharers in the blacke Fryers playehouse, have never given cause of dis pleasure, in that they have brought into theire playes maters of state and Religion, vnfitt to bee handled by them or to bee presented before lewde spectators: neither hath anie complaynte in that kinde ever bene preferrde against them or anie of them. Wherefore they trust moste humblie in your Lordships' consideration of their former good behaviour, being at all tymes readie and willing to yeelde obedience to any command whatsoever your Lordships in your wisdome may thinke in such case meete," &c. "Nov. 1589." A brief reference to the circumstances of the time will show how this certificate became necessary. In consequence of the license taken by several companies of players in London to introduce upon the stage religion and politics, by dramas having reference to the Martin-Marprelate controversy, Lord Burghley wrote to the lord mayor, in the beginning of November, 1589, directing him to make inquiry what companies of players had offended; and on the 12th of November of the same year, the privy council addressed letters to the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord mayor, and the master of the revels, for the appointment of three persons to examine into and to remedy the abuse. Upon this occasion it was that the preceding certificate was sent to the privy council, to exonerate the Queen's Players at the Blackfriars from the charge. These facts are given in detail in the "History of Dramatic Poetry," i., 271, and I wish I could there have added the very curious document I have above quoted. &c.; Thus we see that, in 1589, Shakspeare's name is placed twelfth in the list of the sixteen members of the company. In 1596, he had so far advanced that it was inserted fifth, when only eight of the association were named: in 1603, he was second in the new patent granted by King James on his accession. How much weight is due to these locations, and what inferences we may fairly draw from them, it is not easy to decide, but they certainly show that Shakspeare, from the first, was gradually making his way to greater prominence of station. James Burbage was buried in February, 1596-7, leaving to his son Richard (who had then risen to the highest eminence as an actor) his property in the Blackfriars theatre. This seems to have been thought a good opportunity for again endeavoring to dislodge the players; but, although it is indisputable that some of the principal |