neighborhood, and this circumstance, indicating the
possession of redundant means, becoming known, his
friend, Ridiard Quiney, who was in the metropohs, was
strongly urged both in English and Latin to suggest to
him the policy of trying to obtain one of the valuable
tithe-leases, and to name, among other inducements, —
"by the friends he can make therefore, we think it a
fair mark for him to shoot at ; — it obtained would advance
him in deed and would do us much good," letter* of
Abraham Sturley dated from Stratford-on-Avon, January
24, 1598. These expressions indicate that Shakespeare's
desire to establish a good position for himself in his
native town was well known to his provincial friends.
When Shakespeare was meditating the purchase of the
"odd yard," that is to sa}', most likely rather more than
forty acres of land or thereabouts, he appears to have
had a predilection in favor of Shottery, a hamlet in the
immediate neighborhood of Stratford. It was in this
village that he is generally believed, but on somewhat
inconclusive grounds, to have met with his future wife,
and hence has arisen the inevitable surmise that the incli-
nation in favor of the particular investment emanated
from recollections of the days of courtship. Some of
those days may, indeed, have been passed in that locality,
but whether this be the case or no, it is obvious, from
the tenns in which the contemplated acquisition is in-
troduced that he was desirous of becoming one of the
proprietors of its open fields. These latter, which were
very extensive, comprising altogether about sixteen
hundred acres, have long been enclosed, while there is
nothing on their site, and little in their vicinity, to recall
111
Life WILLIAM
the Shottery that was now in the poet's thoughts. Most
of its numerous ancient footpaths have been suppressed;
its mud-walls have disappeared; very few of its dwellings
exhibit outward traces of genuine Elizabethan work, and
a hideous culvert is the modem substitute for what was
once a stepping-stone passage across a gurgling brook.
It may be confidently stated that there is only one of
its buildings that can be thought to have retained an
approach to a complete preservation of its original external
features, a farm-house that belonged to a family of the
name of Hathaway, and one that is usually considered
to be the birth-place of Shakespeare's own Anne. But
although it cannot be said that "the report of her is
extended more than can be thought to begin from such
a cottage," the truthful biographer is compelled to admit,
in my case more than reluctantly, that the balance of
evidence is hardly in favor of the attribution.
It was natural that the poet, having not only himself
bitterly felt the want of resources not so many years pre-
viously, but seen so much inconvenience arising from a
similar deficiency in his father's household, should now
be determining to avoid the chance of a recurrence of the
infliction. That he did not love money for its own sake,
or for more than its relative advantages, may be gathered
from his liberal expenditure in after life; but that he
had the wisdom to make other tastes subservient to its
acquisition, so long as that course was suggested by pini-
dence, is a fact that cannot fairly be questioned. How-
ever repugnant it may be to the flowery sentiments of the
cesthetic critics, no doubt can arise, in the minds of those
who will listen to evidence, that when Pope asserted that —
112
SHAKESPEARE Life
Shakespeare, whom you and ev'ry playhouse bill
Style the divine, the matchless, what you will,
For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight,
And grew immortal in his own despiglit.
he not only expressed the traditional belief of his own
day, but one which later researches have unerringly
verified. With all Shakespeare's gentleness of disposi-
tion and amiable qualities, it is evident from the records
that there was very little of the merely sentimental in his
nature; that is to say, of such matters as a desire for
posthumous fame, or the excitable sympathy which is so
often recklessly appeased without thought of results. In
the year now under consideration, 1598, he appears not
only as an advancer of money, but also one who nego-
tiated loans through other capitalists.
The comedy of The Merchant of Venice, the plot of
which was either grounded on that of an older drama,
or fonned out of tales long familiar to the public, was
represented with success in London in or before the month
of July, 1598. It then had another title, being "other-
wise called The Jew of Venice," and a bookseller named
Roberts was anxious to secure the copyright, but the regis-
trars of Stationers' Hall withheld their consent until he
had obtained the sanction of the Lord Chamberlain, in
other words, that of the author and his colleagues; and
upwards of two years elapsed before the earliest editions
of the comedy appeared. It continued for a long time to
be one of the acting plays of Shakespeare's company, and,
as lately as 1605, it attracted the favorable notice of James
I, who was so much pleased with one performance that he
ordered a repetition of it two days afterward.
One of the most interesting of the recorded events
113
Life WILLIAM
of Shakespeare's life occurred in the present year. In
September, 1598, Ben Jonson's famous comedy of
Ei>ery Man in his Humor was produced by the Lord
Chamberlain's company, and there is every probabihty
that botli writer and manager were indebted for its
acceptance to the sagacity of the great dramatist, who
was one of the leading actors on the occasion. "His
acquaintance with Ben Jonson," observes Rowe, "began
with a remarkable piece of humanity and good nature;
Mr. Jonson, who was at that time altogether unknown to
the world, had offered one of his plays to the players in
order to have it acted, and the persons into whose hands
it was put, after having turned it carelessly and super-
ciliously over, were just upon returning it to him with an
ill-natured answer that it would be of no service to their
company, when Shakespeare luckily cast his eye upon it,
and found something so well in it as to engage him first
to read it through, and afterwards to recommend Mr.
Jonson and his writings to the public." The statement
that Rare Ben was then absolutely new to literature is
certainly erroneous, however ignorant the Burbages or
their colleagues may have been of his primitive efforts;
but he was in a state of indigence, rendering the judgment
on his manuscript of vital consequence, and the services
of a friendly advocate of inestimable value. He had
been engaged in dramatic work for Henslowe some months
before the appearance of the new comedy, but about that
time there seems to have been a misunderstanding between
them, the latter alluding to Jonson simply as a brick-
layer, not as one of his company, in his record of the un-
fortunate duel with Gabriel. There had been, in all
probability, a theatrical disturbance resulting in the last-
114
SHAKESPEARE Life
named event, and in Ben's temporary secession from tlie
Rose. Then there are the words of Jonson himself, who,
unbiased by the recollection that he had been defeated
in, at all events, one literary skirmish with the great
dramatist, speaks of him in language that would appear
hyperbolical had it not been sanctioned by a feeling of
gratitude for a definite and important service, — "I loved
the man and do honor his memory, on this side idolatry,
as much as any." This was a personal idolatry, not one
solely in reference to his works, moderately adverse criti-
cisms upon which immediately follow the generous pane-
gyric. It may, then, fairly be said that the evidences at
our disposal favor, on the whole, the general credibility of
the anecdote narrated by Rowe.
In the same month in which Shakespeare was acting
in Ben Jonson's comedy, — September, 1598, — there ap-
peared in London the Palladis Tamia, a work that con-
tains more elaborate notices of the great dramatist than
are elsewhere to be found in all contemporary literature.
Its author was one Francis Meres, a native of Lincolnshire,
who had been educated at Cambridge, but for some time
past resident in the metropolis. Although his studies
were mostly of a theological character, he was interested
in all branches of literature, and had foi*med intimacies
with some of its chief representatives. He had been fa-
vored with access to the unpublished writings of Drayton
and Shakespeare, and had either seen a manuscript, or
witnessed a representation, of Rare Ben's earliest tragedy.
In tlie important enumeration of Shakespeare's plays given
by Meres, four of them, — The Two Gentlemen of Verona,
Love Labors Won, The Midsummer Night's Dreojti, and
King John, — are mentioned for the first time. There can
115
Life WILLIAM
be no doubt that the first of these dramas had been written
some years previously, and Love Labors Won, a production
which is nowhere else alluded to, is one of the numerous
works of that time which have long since perished, unless
its graceful appellation be the original or a secondary
title of some other comedy. Neither King John nor The
Two Gentlemen of Verona was printed during the author's
lifetime, but two editions of The Midsummer Night's
Dream appeared in the year 1600. This last-mentioned
circumstance indicates the then popularity of that exquisite
but singular drama, the comic scenes of which appear to
have been those specially rehshcd by the public. One
little fragment of the contemporary stage humor, dis-
played in the representation of this play, has been recorded.
When Thisbe killed herself, she fell on the scabbard, not
on the trusty sword, the interlude doubtlessly having been
acted in that spirit of extreme farce which was naturally
evolved from the stupidity and nervousness of the clowns.
It is in the Palladis Tamia, 1598, that we first hear of
those remarkable productions, the Sonnets. "As the soul
of Euphorbus," observes Meres in that quaint collection
of similitudes, "was thought to live in Pythagoras, so
the sweet witty soul of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honey-
tongued Shakespeare; witness his Venus and Adonis, his
Lucrece, his sugared Sonnets among his private friends,"
etc. These last-mentioned dainty poems were clearly not
then intended for general circulation, and even transcripts
of a few were obtainable with difficulty. A publisher
named Jaggard who, in the following year, 1599, at-
tempted to form a collection of new Shakesperean poems,
did not manage to obtain more than two of the Sonnets.
The words of Meres, and the insignificant result of Jag-
116
s^
>
I
-a
cfl
V
H
SHAKESPEARE Life
gard's efforts, when viewed in connection witli the nature
of these strange poems, lead to the inference tliat some of
tJiem were written in clusters, and others as separate exer-
cises, either being contributions made by their writer to the
albums of his friends, probably no two of the latter being
favored with identical compositions. There was no tra-
dition adverse to a behef ifi their fragmentary character
in the generation inmiediately following the author's
death, as may be gathered from the arrangement found
in Benson's edition of 1640 ; and tliis concludes the little
real evidence on the subject that has descended to us.
It was reserved for the students of the last century, who
have ascertained so much respecting Shakespeare that was
unsuspected by his own friends and contemporaries, to
discover that his innermost earnest thoughts, his mental
conflicts, and so on, are revealed in what would then be
the most powerful lyrics yet given to the world. But
the victim of spiritual emotions that involve criminatory
reflections does not usually protrude them voluntarily on
the consideration of society; and, if the personal theory
be accepted, we must concede the possibility of our
national dramatist gratuitously confessing his sins and
revealing those of others, proclaiming his disgrace and
avowing his repentance, in poetical circulars distributed
by the delinquent himself among his most intimate friends.
There are no external testimonies of any description
in favor of a personal application of the Sonnets, while
there are abundant difficulties arising from the reception
of such a theory. Among the latter is one deserving
of special notice, for its investigation will tend to remove
the displeasing interpretation all but universally given of
two of the poems, those in which reference is supposed
Shk-l-C 117
Life WILLIAM
to be made to a bitter feeling of personal degradation
allowed by Shakespeare to result from his connection
with the stage. Is it conceivable that a man who
encouraged a sentiment of this nature, one which must
have been accompanied with a distaste and contempt for
his profession, would have remained an actor years and
years after an3f real necessity for such a course had
expired? By the spring of 1602 at the latest, if not
previously, he had acquired a secure and definite com-
petence independently of his emoluments as a dramatist,
and yet, eight years afterwards, in 1610, he is discovered
playing in company with Burbage and Hemmings at the
Blackfriars Theater. • When, in addition to this voluntary
long continuance on the boards, we bear in mind the vivid
interest in tlie stage, and in the purity of the acted drama,
which is exhibited in the well-known dialogue in Hamlet,
and that the poet's last wishes included affectionate
recollections of three of his fellow-players, it is difficult
to believe that he could have nourished a real antipathy
to his lower vocation. It is, on the contrary, to be
inferred that, however greatly he may have deplored the
unfortunate estimation in which the stage was held by
the imm.ense majority of his countrymen, he himself en-
tertained a love for it that was too sincere to be repressed
by contemporary disdain. If there is, among the de-
fective records of the poet's life, one feature demanding
special respect, it is the unflinching courage with which,
notwithstanding his desire for social position, he braved
public opinion in favor of a continued adherence to
that which he felt was in itself a noble profession, and
this at a time when it was not merely despised, but sur-
118
SHAKESPEARE Life
rounded by an aggressive fanaticism that prohibited its
exercise even in his own native town.
These considerations may suffice to eliminate a personal
application from the two sonnets above mentioned, and as
to the remainder, if the only safe method, that of discard-
ing all mere assumptions, be strictly followed, the clearer
the ideality of most of them, and the futility of arguments
resting on any other basis, will be perceived. It will be
observed that all the hypotheses, which aim at a complete
biographical exposition of the Sonnets, necessitate the ac-
ceptance of interpretations that are too subtle for dis-
passionate reasoners. Even in the few instances where
there is a reasonable possibility that Shakespeare was
thinking of living individuals, as when he refers to an
unknown poetical rival or quibbles on his own Christian
name, scarcely any, if any, light is thrown on his personal
feelings or character. In the latter case, it is a mere
assumption that the second Will is the youth of the
opening series, or, at least, that position cannot be sus-
tained without tortuous interpretations of much which is
found in the interval. With respect to other suggested
personal revelations, such as those which are thought
to be chronicled in Shakespeare's addresses to the
dark-eyed beauty of more than questionable reputation,
— unless, with a criminal indifference to the risk of the
scandal traveling to the ears of his family, he had
desired to proclaim to his acquaintances his own infi-
delity and folly, — he might, perhaps, have repeated the
words of the author of Lic'm, who published his own son-
nets in the year 1593, and thus writes of their probable
effects, — "for the matter of love, it may bee I am so
119
Life WILLIAM
devoted to some one, into whose hands these may Hght
by chance, that she may say, which thou nowe saiest,
that sureHe he is in love, which if she doe, then have I
the full recompence of my labour, and the poems have
dealt sufficientlie for the discharge of their owne duetie."
The disguise of the ideal under the personal was then,
indeed, an ordinary expedient.
In the Christmas holidays 'of 1598-1599, three plays,
one of them in all probability having been the Merry
Wives of Windsor, were acted by Shakespeare's com-
pany before the Queen at Whitehall, after which they
do not appear to have performed at Court until the
following December, an the 26th of which month they
were at Richmond Palace. The poet's distinguished
friend. Lord Southampton, was in London in the autumn
of this year, and no doubt favored more than one theater
with his attendance. In a letter dated October 11, 1599,
his lordship is alluded to as spending his time "merrily
In going to plays every day."
In March, 1599, the Earl of Essex departed on his
ill-starred expedition to Ireland, leaving the metropolis
amid the enthusiastic cheers of the inhabitants. He
was then the most popular man in all England, hosts
of the middle and lower classes regarding him as their
chief hope for the redress of their grievances. At some
time in May or June, while the suppression of the Irish
was considered in his able hands a mere work of time,
Shakespeare completed his play of King Henry the Fifth,
taking the opportunil}^ of introducing in it a graceful
compliment to the Earl, in terms which indicate that
the poet himself sympathized with the thousands of
Londoners who fondly expected hereafter to welcome
120
SHAKESPEARE Life
his victorious return to England. Independently, how-
ever, of his appreciation of Essex, it was natural that
the great dramatist should have taken a special interest
in the course of affairs in Ireland, his great patron and
friend, Lord Southampton, holding the distinguished
position of General of the Horse in the Earl's army.
There is no record of this drama in the year of its
composition, but there is little or rather no doubt that
it was produced on the diminutive boards of the Curtain
Theater in the summer of 1599. It was favorably re-
ceived and the character of Pistol appears to have been
specially relished by the audiences. In or before the
August of the following year, 1600, an unsuccessful
attempt was made to obtain a license for its publication,
but the only copy of it, printed in the author's lifetime,
was a miserably imperfect and garbled one which was
surreptitiously published about that time by ]Millington
and Busby, and transferred by them very soon afterwards
to Thomas Pavier, the latter" reprinting this spurious
edition in 1602 and 1608. It is curious that Pavier,
who was so unscrupulous in other instances in the use
of Shakespeare's name, should have refrained from plac-
ing it on the title-pages of any of those impressions.
There are unequivocal indications that the edition of 1600
was fraudulently printed from a copy made up from notes
taken at the theater.
Toward the close of this year, 1599, a renewed at-
tempt was made by the poet to obtain a grant of coat-
armor to his father. It was now proposed to impale the
arms of Shakespeare with those of Arden, and on each
occasion ridiculous statements were made respecting the
claims of the two families. Both were really descended
Life WILLIAM
from obscure English country yeomen, but the heralds
made out that the predecessors of John Shakespeare were
rewarded by the Crown for distinguished services, and that
his wife's ancestors were entitled to armorial bearings.
Although the poet's relatives at a later date assumed his
right to the coat suggested for his father in 1596, it
does not appear that either of the proposed grants was
ratified by the college, and certainly nothing more is
heard of the Arden impalement.
The Sonnets, first mentioned in the previous year, are
now again brought into notice. They had evidently
obtained a recognition in literary circles, but restrictive
suggestions had possibly been made to the recipients, for,
as previously observed, when Jaggard, in 1599, issued
a tiny volume under the fanciful title of The Passionate
Pilgrim, he was apparently not enabled to secure more
than two of them. These are in the first part of the book,
the second being entitled Sonnets to Sundry Notes of
Music, but Shakespeare's name is not attached to the
latter division. The publisher seems to have had few
materials of any description that he could venture to
insert under either title, for, in order to make something
like a book with them, he adopted the very unusual
course of having nearly the whole of the tract printed
upon one side only of each leaf. Not keeping a shop, he
entrusted the sale to Leake, who was then the owner of
the copyright of Venus and Adonis, and who published
an edition of that poem in the same year, the two little
volumes no doubt being displayed together on the stall
of the latter at the Greyhound in St. Paul's Churchyard.
With the exception of the two sonnets above alluded
to, and a few verses taken from the already published
122
SHAKESPEARE Life
comedy of Lozfe's Lahor^s Lost, Jaggard's collection
does not include a single line that can be positively
ascribed to the pen of the great dramatist, but much
that has been ascertained to have been the composition
of others. The entire publication bears evident marks
of an attempted fraud, and it may well be doubted if
any of its untraced contents, with perhaps three excep-
tions, justify the announcement of the title-page. The
three pieces alluded to are those on the subject of Venus
and Adonis, and these, with the beautiful little poem called
The Lover^s Complaint, may be included in the significant
et cetera by which IMeres clearly implies that Shakespeare
was the author of other poetical essays besides those which
he enumerates.
It is extremely improbable that Shakespeare, in that
age of small London and few publishers, could have
been ignorant of the use made of his name in the first
edition of the Passionate P'dgrifin.. Although he may,
however, have been displeased at Jaggard's unwarrantable
conduct in the matter, it appears that he took no strenu-
ous measures to induce him to disavow or suppress the
ascription in the title-page of that work. There was, it is
true, no legal remedy, but there is reason for believing that,
in this case, at least, a personal remonstrance would have
been effective. Chving, perhaps, to the apathy exhibited
b}' Shakespeare on this occasion, a far more remarkable
operation in the same kind of knavery was perpetrated
in the latter part of the following year by the publisher
of the First Part of the Life of Sir John Oldcastle, 1600,
a play mainly concerned with the romantic adventures
of Lord Cobham. Although this drama is known not
only to have been composed by other dramatists, but also
123
Life WILLIAM
to have belonged to a theatrical company with whom
Shakespeare had then no manner of connection, it was
unblushinglj announced as his work by the publisher,
Thomas Pavier, a shifty bookseller, residing at the
grotesque sign of the Cat and Parrots near the Royal
Exchange. Two editions were issued in the same year
by Pavier, the one most largely distributed being that
which was assigned to the pen of the great dramatist, and
another to which no writer's name is attached. As there
are no means of ascertaining which of these editions is
the first in order of publication, it is impossible to say
with certainty whether the introduction of Shakespeare's
name was an afterthought, or if it were withdrawn for
a special reason, perhaps either at his instigation or at
that of the real authors. It is most likely, however, that
the anonymous impression was the first that was published,
that the ascribed edition was the second, and that there
was no cancel of the poet's name in either.
The most celebrated theater the world has ever seen
was now to receive a local habitation and a name. The
wooden structure belonging to the Burbages in Shoreditch
had fallen into desuetude in 1598, and, very early in 1599,
they had pulled it down and removed the materials to
Southwark, using them in the erection of a new building
which was completed towards the end of the year and
opened early in 1600 under the title of the Globe. Ben
Jonson's comedy of Every Man Out of his Humour was