"twenty shillings in gold." This child was the son of
Henry Walker, a mercer and one of the aldermen of the
town. It should be added that the King's Servants were
playing at Coventry on the twenty-ninth of the last-named
month, and that they acted in the same year upon some
unknown occasion at Marlborough.
The records of Stratford exhibit the poet, in 1608 and
1609, engaged in a suit with a townsman for the recovery
of a debt. In the August of the former year he com-
menced an action against one John Addenbroke, but it
then seems to have been in abeyance for a time, the first
precept for a jury in the cause being dated December 21,
152
SHAKESPEARE Life
1608; after which there was another delay, possibly in the
hope of the matter being amicably arranged, a peremptory
summons to the same jury having been issued on February
15, in the following year. A verdict was then given in
favor of the poet for £6 and £1. 4s. costs, and execution
went f oi-th against the defendant ; but the sergeant-at-mace
returning that he was not to be found within the liberty
of the borough, Shakespeare proceeded against a person of
the name of Horneby, who had become bail for Adden-
broke. This last process is dated on June 7, 1609, so that
nearly a year elapsed during the prosecution of the suit.
It must not be assumed that the great dramatist attended
personally to these matters, although of course the pro-
ceedings were carried on under his instructions. The pre-
cepts, as appears from memoranda in the originals, were
issued by the poet's cousin, Thomas Greene, who was then
residing, under some unknown conditions, at New Place.
The spring of the year 1609 is remarkable in literary
history for the appearance of one of the most singular
volumes that ever issued from the press. It was entered
at Stationers' Hall on May 20, and pubhshed by one
Thomas Thoi-pe under the title of — Shake-speares Sonnets,
n€uer before imprinted, — the first two words being given
in large capitals, so that they might attract their full share
of public notice. This little book, a very small quarto of
forty leaves, was sold at what would now be considered the
trifling price of five-pence. The exact manner in which
these sonnets were acquired for publication remains a
mystery, but it is most probable that they were obtained
from one of the poet's intimate friends who alone would be
likely to have copies, not only of so many of those pieces
but also one of The Lover's Co-mplaint. However that
153
Life WILLIAM
maj^ be, Thorpe, — the well-wishing adventurer, — was so
elated with the opportunity of entering into the specula-
tion that he dedicated the work to the factor in the ac-
quisition, one Mr. W. H., in language of hyperbolical
gratitude, wishing him every happiness and an eternity,
the latter in terms which are altogether inexplicable. The
surname of the addressee, which has not been recorded, has
been the subject of numerous futile conjectures; but the
use of initials in the place of names, especially if they
referred to private individuals, was then so extremely com-
mon that it is not necessary to assume that there was an
intentional reser^^ation.
At the time that the Sonnets Issued from the press the
author's company were itinerating in Kent, playing at
Hythe on May 16 and at New Romney on the following
da}'. They were also at Shrewsbury at some unrecorded
period in the same year, a memorable one in thfe theatrical
biography of the great dramatist, for in the following
December, the eyry of children quitted the Blackfriars
Theater to be replaced by Shakespeare's company. The
latter then included Hemmings, Condell, Burbage, and the
poet himself.
The exact period is unknown, but it was in the same
year, 1609, or not very long afterwards, that Shakespeare
and two other individuals either commenced or devised a
lav/-suit bearing upon a question in which he was interested
as a partial owner of the Stratford tithes. Our only in-
formation on the subject is derived from the draft of a bill
of complaint, one that was penned under the following cir-
cumstances. — Nearly all the valuable possessions of the
local college, including the tithes of Stratford-on-Avon,
Old Stratford, Welcombe and Bishopton were granted by
154
SHAKESPEARE Life
Edward VI, a few days before his death in 1553, to the
Corporation, but the gift was subject to the unexpired
tenn of a lease for ninety-two years which had been exe-
cuted in 1544* by the then proprietors in favor of one Wil-
liam Barker. The next owner of the lease, John Barker,
assigned it in 1580 to Sir John Huband, but he reserved
to himself a rent charge of £27. 13s. 4d., with the usual
power of reentry in case of non-payment. The above
mentioned tithes were of course involved in this liability,
but, when Shakespeare purchased a moiety of them in 1605,
it was arranged that his share of that charge should be
commuted by an annual payment of £5. An obsei-vance
of this condition should have absolved the poet from
further trouble in the matter, but this unfortunately was not
the case. When the bill of complaint was drafted there
were about forty persons who had interests under Barkei-'s
lease, and commutations of the shares of the rent-charge
had only been made in two cases, that is to say, in those
of the owners of the tithe-moieties. A number of
the other tenants had expressed their willingness to join in
an equitable arrangement, provided that it was legally car-
ried out ; but there were some who declined altogether to
contribute, and hence arose the necessity of taking measures
to compel them to do so, a few, including Shakespeare,
having had to pay more than their due proportions to
avoid the forfeitures of their several estates. The result of
the legal proceedings, if any were instituted, is not known,
but there are reasons for believing that the movement
terminated in some way in favor of the complainants.
The annual income which Shakespeare derived from his
moiety is estimated in the bill of complaint at £60, but this
was not only subject to the payment of the above-named
155
Life WILLIAM
£5, but also to that of one-half of another rent-charge,
one of £34, that belonged to the Corporation of Strat-
ford. His net income from the tithes would thus be
reduced to £38, but it was necessarily of a fluctuating
character, the probability, however, being that there was
a tendency towards increase, especially in the latter part
of his career. It is most likely that he entered into an
agreement each year with a collector, whose province it
would have been to relieve him of all trouble in the matter,
and pay over a stipulated amount. It is not probable that
he himself visited the harvest field to mark, as was then the
local practice, every tenth sheaf with a dock, or that he
personally attended to the destination of each of his tithe-
pigs.
The next year, 1610, is nearly barren of recorded in-
cidents, but in the early part of it Shakespeare purchased
twenty acres of pasture land from the Combes, adding
them to the valuable freeholds that he had obtained from
those parties in 1602. After this transaction he owned
no fewer than a hundred and twenty-seven acres in the com-
mon fields of Stratford and its neighborhood. His first
purchase consisted entirely of arable land, but although he
had the usual privilege of common of pasture that was
attached to it, the new acquisition was no doubt a desirable
one. The concord of the fine that was prepared on the
latter occasion is dated April 13, 1610, and, as it was
acknowledged before Commissioners, it may be inferred that
Shakespeare was not in London at the time. His com-
pany were at Dover in July, at Oxford in August, and at
Shrewsbury at some period of the year which has not been
recorded.
There are an unusual number of evidences of Shake-
156
SHAKESPEARE Life
speare's dramatic popularity in the following year. We
now first hear of his plays of Macbeth, The Winter's Tale,
Cymbelvne, and The Tempest. New impressions of Titus
Anchonkus, Hamlet, and Pericles also appeared in 1611,
and, in the same year, a publisher named Kelme issued an
edition of the old play of King John, that which Shake-
speare so man^elously re-dramatized, with the deceptive
imputation of the authorship to one W. Sh., a clear proof,
if any were needed, of the early commercial value of his
name.
The tragedy of Macbeth was acted at the Globe
Theater, in April, 1611, and Forman, the celebrated
astrologer, has recorded a graphic account of its perform-
ance on that occasion, the only contemporary notice of
it that has been discovered. The eccentric Doctor appears
to have given some of the details inaccurately, but he
could hardly have been mistaken in the statement that
Macbeth and Banquo made their first appearance on
horseback, a curious testimony to the rude endeavors of
the stage-managers of the day to invest their repre-
sentations with something of reality. The weird sisters
were personated by men whose heads were disguised by
grotesque periwigs. Forman's narrative decides a ques-
tion, which has frequently been raised, as to whether the
Ghost of Banquo should appear, or only be imagined, by
Macbeth. There is no doubt that the Ghost was person-
ally introduced on the early stage as well as long after-
wards, when the tragedy was revived by Davenant ; but the
audiences of the seventeenth century were indoctrinated
with the common belief that spirits were generally visible
only to those connected with their object or mission, so in
this play, as in some others of the period, an artificial
157
Life WILLIAM
stimulus to credulity in that direction was unnecessary. It
is a singular circumstance that, in Davenant's time, Banquo
and his Ghost were perf onned by different actors, a practice
not impossibly derived from that of former times.
A performance of the comedy of The Wmter^s Tale,
the name of which is probably owing to its having been
originally produced in the winter season, was witnessed
by Dr. Forman at the Globe Theater on May 15, 1611.
It was also the play chosen for representation before the
Court on November 15 in the same year. Although it is
extremely unlikely that Camillo's speech respecting
"anointed Kings" influenced the selection of the comedy,
there can hardly be a doubt tliat a sentiment so appropriate
to the anniversary celebrated on that day was favorably
received by a Whitehall audience. The W'mter^s Tale was
also performed in the year 1613 before Prince Charles, the
Lady Elizabeth and the Elector Palatine, some time before
the close of the month of April, at which period the two
last of the above-named personages left England for the
Continent.
Among the performances of other dramas witnessed by
Dr. Forman was one of the tragedy of Cymbeline, and
although he does not record either the date or the locality,
there can be little hesitation in referring the incident to
the spring of the year 1611 ; at all events, to a period not
later than the following September, when that marvelously
eccentric astrologer died suddenly in a boat while passing
over the Thames from Southwark to Puddle Dock. It may
be suspected that the poet was in London at the time of
that occurrence, for in a subscription list originated at
Stratford-on-Avon on the eleventh of that month, his name
is the only one found on the margin, as if it were a later
158
SHAKESPEARE Life
insertion in a folio page of donors *'towardcs the charge of
prosecutyng the bill in Parliament for the better repayre of
the highe waies." The moneys were raised in anticipation
of a Parliament which was then expected to be summoned,
but which did not meet until long afterwards. The list
includes the names of all the leading inhabitants of the
town, so that it is impossible to say whether the poet took
a special interest in the proposed design, or if he allowed
his name to appear merely out of consideration for its pro-
moters.
The comedy of The Tempest, having most likely been
produced at one of the Shakespearean theaters in 1611,
was represented before King James and the Court at
Whitehall on the evening of November 1 in that year, the
incidental music having been composed by Robert Johnson,
one of the Royal "musicians for the lutes." The record
of the performance includes the earliest notice of that
drama which has yet been discovered. It was also acted
with success at the Blackfriars Theater, and it was one
of the plays selected early in the year 1613 for the enter-
tainment of Prince Charles, the Lady Elizabeth and the
Elector Palatine.
The four years and a half that intervened between the
performance of The Tempest in 1611 and the author's
death, could not have been one of his periods of great lit-
erary activity. So many of his plays are known to have
been in existence at the former date, it follows that there
are only six which could by any possibility have been writ-
ten after that time, and it is not likely that the whole of
those belong to so late an era. These facts lead irresisti-
bly to the conclusion that the poet abandoned literary
occupation a considerable period before his decease, and, la
159
Life WILLIAM
all probability, when he disposed of his theatrical property.
So long as he continued to be a shareholder in the Globe
Theater, it was incumbent upon him to supply the com-
pany with tvvo plays annually. It may therefore, be
reasonably inferred that he parted with his shares within
two or three years after the performance above alluded to,
the drama of King Henry the Eighth being, most likely,
his concluding work.
Among the six plays above mentioned is the amusing
comedy of The Taming of the Shrew. Most of the inci-
dents of that drama, as well as those of its exquisite induc-
tion, are taken from an old farce which was written at some
time before May, 1594, and published in that year under
the nearly identical title of The Taming of a Shrew. This
latter work had then been acted by the Earl of Pembroke's
servants, and was probably well known to Shakespeare
when he was connected with that company, or shortly after-
wards, for it was one of the plays represented at the New-
ington Butts Theater by the Lord Admiral's and the Lord
Chamberlain's men in the June of the same year. The
period at which he wrote the new comedy is at present a
matter solely of conjecture; but its local allusions might
induce an opinion that it was composed with a view to a
contemplated representation before a provincial audience.
That delicious episode, the mduction, presents us with a
fragment of the rural life with which Shakespeare himself
must have been familiar in his native county. With such
animated power is it written that we almost appear to
personally witness the affray between Marian Hacket, the
fat ale-wife of Wincot, and Christopher Sly, to see the
nobleman on his return from the chase discovering the in-
sensible drunkard, and to hear the strolling actors make
160
SHAKESPEARE Life
the offer of professional services that was requited by the
cordial welcome to the buttery. Wincot is a secluded
hamlet near Stratford-on-Avon, and there is an old tradi-
tion that the ale-house frequented by Sly was often resorted
to by Shakespeare for the sake of diverting himself with
a fool'who belonged to a neighboring mill. Stephen Sly,
one of the tinker's friends or relatives, was a known char-
acter at Stratford-on-Avon, and is several times mentioned
in the records of that town. This fact, taken in conjunc-
tion with the references to Wilmecote and Barton-on-the-
Heath, definitely proves that the scene of the induction
was intended to be in the neighborhood of Stratford-on-
Avon, the water-mill tradition leading to the belief that
Little Wilmecote, the part of the hamlet nearest to the
poet's native town, is the Wincot alluded to in the comedy.
If — but the virtuous character of that interesting particle
must not be overlooked — the local imagery extends to the
nobleman, the play itself must be supposed to be repre-
sented at Clopton House, the only large private residence
near the scene of Sly's intemperance; but if so, not until
1605, in the May of which year Sir George became Baron
Carew of Clopton.
It was the general opinion in the convivial days of
Shakespeare "that a quart of ale is a dish for a king."
So impressed were nearly all classes of society by its attrac-
tions, it was imbibed wherever it was to be found, and there
was no possible idea of degradation attached to the poet's
occasional visits to the house of entertainment at Wincot.
If, indeed, he had been observed in that village and to pass
Mrs. Racket's door without taking a sip of ale with the
vigorous landlady, he might perhaps no longer have been
enrolled among the members of good-fellowship. Such a
161
Life WILLIAM
notion, at all events, is at variance with the proclivities
recorded in the famous crab-tree anecdote, one which is
of sufficient antiquity to deserve a notice among the more
trivial records of Shakespearean biography. It would ap-
pear from this tradition that the poet, one summer's morn-
ins:, set out from his native town for a walk over Bardon
Hill to the village of Bidford, six miles distant, a place
said to have been then noted fdr its revelry. When he had
nearly reached his destination, he happened to meet with
a shepherd, and jocosely enquired of him if the Bidford
Drinkers were at home. The rustic, perfectly equal to the
occasion, replied that the Drinkers were absent, but that
he would easily find the Sippers, and that the latter might
perhaps be sufficiently jolly to meet his expectations. The
anticipations of the shepherd were fully realized, and
Shakespeare, in bending his way homeward late in the
evening, found an acceptable interval of rest under the
branches of a crab-tree which was situated about a mile
from Bidford. There is no great wonder and no special
offense to record, when it is added that he was overtaken
by drowsiness, and that he did not renew the course of
his journey until early in the following morning. The
whole story, indeed, when viewed strictly with reference
to the habits and opinions of those days, presents no
features that suggest disgrace to the principal actor, or
imposition on the part of the narrator. With our an-
cestors the ludicrous aspect of intoxication completely
neutralized, or rather, to speak more correctly, excluded
the thought of attendant discredit. The affair would
have been merely regarded in the light of an unusually
good joke, and that there is, at least, some foundation
for the tale may be gathered from the fact that, as early
162
SHAKESPEARE Life
as the year 1762, the tree, then known as Shakespeare's
Canopy, was regarded at Stratford-on-Avon as an object
of great interest.
In the year 1612 the third edition of The Passionate
Pilgrim made its appearance, the pubHsher seeking to
at,tract a special class of buyers by describing it as con-
sisting of "Certain Amorous Sonnets between Venus and
Adonis." These were announced as the work of Shake-
speare, but it is also stated that to them were "newly
added two love-epistles, the first from Paris to Helen,
and Helen's answer back again to Paris ;" the name of
the author of the last two poems not being mentioned.
The wording of the title might imply that the latter were
also the compositions of the great dramatist, but they were
in fact written by Thomas Heywood, and had been im-
pudently taken from his Troia Britanica, a large poetical
work that had appeared three years previously, 1609.
"Here, likewise," obser^^es that writer, speaking in 1612
of the last-named production, "I must necessarily insert a
manifest injur}^ done me in that worke by taking the two
Epistles of Paris to Helen, and Helen to Paris, and print-
ing them in a lesse volume under the name of anotlicr, which
may put the world in opinion I might steale them from
him ; and hee, to doe himselfe right, hath since published
them in his owne name; but as I must acknowledge my
lines not worthy his patronage under whom he hath
publisht them, so the author I know much offended with
M. Jaggard that (altogether unknowne to him) presumed
to make so bold with his name."
Although Heywood thus ingeniously endeavors to
make it appear that his chief objection to the piracy
arose from a desire to shield himself against a charge
163
Life WILLIAM
of plagiarism, it is apparent that he was liighly incensed
at the hberty that had been taken ; and a new title-page
to The Passionate Pilgrim of 1612, from which Shake-
peare's name was withdrawn, was afterwards issued.
There can be little doubt that this step was taken mainly
in consequence of the remonstrances of Heywood ad-
dressed to Shakespeare, who may certainly have been dis-
pleased at Jaggard's proceedings, but as clearly required
pressure to induce him to act in the matter. If the
publisher would now so readily listen to Shakespeare's
wishes, it is difficult to believe that he would not have been
equally compliant had he been expostulated with either
at the first appearance of the work in 1599, or at any
period during the following twelve years of its circulation.
It is pleasing to notice that Heywood, In observing that
the poet v,as ignorant of Jaggard's intentions, entirely
acquits the former of any blame in the matter.
In the course of this year the King's Servants are
found playing at Folkestone, New Romney, and Shrev/s-
bury; and early in the following one, 1613, the great
dramatist lost his younger, most probably now his only
surviving, brother, Richard, who was buried at Stratford-
on-Avon on Thursday, February 4. He was in the thirty-
ninth year of his age. Beyond the records of his baptism
and funeral no biographical particulars respecting him
have been discovered ; but It may be suspected that all
the poet's brothers vv'ere at times more or less dependent on
his purse or Influence. When the parish-clerk told Dow-
dall, in 1693, that Shakespeare "was the best of his family,"
he used a provincial expression which implied not only
that its other members of the same sex were less amiable
164
SHAKESPEARE Life
than himself, but that they were not held in very favor-
able estimation.
There is no record of the exact period at which the
great dramatist retired from the stage in favor of a
retreat at New Place, but it is not likely that he made
the latter a permanent residence until 1613 at the earliest.
Had this step been taken previously, it is improbable
that he would, in the March of that year, have been
anxious to secure possession of an estate in London, a
property consisting of a house and a yard, the lower
part of the former having been then and for long pre-
viously a haberdasher's shop. The premises referred to,
situated within one or two hundred yards to the east of
tlie Blackfriars Theater, were bought by the poet for the
sum of £140, and for some reason or other, he was so
intent on its acquisition that he permitted a considerable
amount, £60, of the purchase-money to remain on mort-
gage. That reason can hardly be found in the notion that
the property was merely a desirable investment, for it
would appear to have been purchased at a somershat ex-
travagant rate, the vendor, one Henry Walker, a London
musician, having paid but £100 for it in the year 1604.
If intended for conversion into Shakespeare's own resi-
dence, that design was afterwards abandoned, for, at some
time previously to his death, he had granted a lease of it
to John Robinson, who was, oddl}' enough, one of the
persons who had violently opposed the establishment of
the neighboring theater. It does not appear that Shake-
speare lived to redeem the mortgage, for the legal estate
remained in the trustees until the year 1618. Among the
latter was one described as John Hemyng of London,
Shk-1-8 165
Life WILLIAM
gentleman, who signs himself Heminges, but it is not likely
that he was the poet's friend and colleague of the same
name.
The conveyance-deeds of this house bear the date of
March 10, 1613, but in all probability they were not
executed until the following day, and at the same time
that the mortgage was effected. The latter transaction
was completed in Shakespeare's presence on the eleventh,
and that the occurrence took place in London or in the
immediate neighborhood is apparent from the fact that
the vendor deposited the original conveyance on the same
day for enrollment in the Court of Chancery. The in-
dependent witnesses present on the occasion consisted of