in the old home in Henley Street, to which she had gone fifty years before as John Shakespeare's wife, and where the son was born to whom she doubtless owed her undisturbed residence in that house of hope and of sad and tender memories. We do not know that he was present at her funeral; and he seems to have set up no stone to tell us where she or his father lay. But the same is true with regard to his son Hamnet: and it is reasonable to suppose that his own death prevented the completion of designs for a tomb for the family. The next month, October of this same year, 1608, affords us, though in the most formal and unsatisfactory manner, our nearest approximation to a record of a social gathering at which he was present. On the 16th he was sponsor at the baptism of the son of Henry Walker, an alderman of Stratford. The boy was called after his godfather, who remembered him in his will by a legacy of xx. s. in gold. So that, after all, as Shakespeare's mother's funeral took place on the 6th of the previous month, we may be pretty sure that he performed for her the last offices, and that he was remaining at Stratford in temporary and much coveted seclusion when he was asked to be William Walker's godfather. He had produced his great tragedy King Lear, the most wondrous work of human genius, in 1605, when he was forty years old. Of this drama the bookseller obtained a copy in 1608, and in that year published three editions of it, the high reputation of its author, as well as the public admiration of this particular work, having been shown not only by the unusual demand which the bookseller was called upon to supply, but by the means which the latter took to make it clear that this was "Mr. William Shakespeare his Tragedy of King Lear."* * See the Introduction to this play, Vol. XI. For anxious souls who are concerned upon the subject of Shakespeare's taxes, there is a comfortable memorandum preserved at Dulwich College, which professes to give the names of all those who in April, 1609, were rated and assessed for a weekly payment toward the relief of the poor of the Clink Liberty in Southwark. Among fifty-seven names are those of Philip Henslow, Edward Alleyn, and Mr. Shakespeare, who are each assessed weekly at vj. d. But, alas! this invaluable evidence also is impeached as spurious; and judging from the fac-simile of it which has been published, it is certainly but a clumsy, and sometimes careless, imitation of 17th century writing. But for this loss there is recompense in the authenticity of a court record, by which we know that in August, 1608, Shakespeare sued John Addenbroke of Stratford, got a judgment for £6, and £1 4s. costs, and that, Addenbroke being returned non est inventus, Shakespeare sued his bail Thomas Hornby, the proceedings lasting until June, 1609. Four years before, Shakespeare had sued one Philip Rogers in the Stratford Court of Record for £1 15 s. 10 d. He had sold Rogers malt to the value of £1 19s. 10 d., and had lent him 2s., of which the debtor had paid but 6s. And so Shakespeare brought suit for what is called in trade the balance of the account, which represented about $40 of our money. These stories grate upon our feelings with a discord as much harsher than that which disturbs us when we hear of Addison suing poor Steele for £100, as Shakespeare lives in our hearts the lovelier as well as the greater man than Addison. But Addison's case was aggravated by the fact that the debtor was his long-time friend and fellow-laborer. Debts are to be paid, and rogues who can pay and will not pay must be made to pay; but the pursuit of an impoverished man, for the sake of imprisoning him and depriv ing him both of the power of paying his debt and supporting himself and his family, is an incident in Shakespeare's life which it requires the utmost allowance and consideration for the practice of the time and country to enable us to contemplate with equanimity — satisfaction is impossible. The biographer of Shakespeare must record these facts, because the literary antiquaries have unearthed, produced, and pitilessly printed them as new particulars of the life of Shakespeare. We hunger, and we receive these husks; we open our mouths for food, and we break our teeth against these stones. What have these lawpapers, in the involved verbiage of which dead quarrels lie embalmed, in hideous and grotesque semblance of their living shapes, their life-blood dried that lent them all their little dignity, their action, and their glow, exhaling only a faint and sickly odor of the venom that has kept them from decay, what have these to do with the life of him whom his friends delighted to call sweet and gentle Could not these, at least, have been allowed to rest? The parties to them have been two centuries in their graves. Why awake from slumber the empty echoes of their living strife? It is almost as remote from the purpose of true biography, though it is somewhat more satisfactory, to ascertain the amount of the income which Shakespeare so laboriously acquired and so jealously guarded. That the basis of a calculation might not be lacking, the indefatigable (and ever successful) Mr. Collier produced from the manuscripts at Bridgewater House a memorandum which professes to state the value of Shakespeare's property in the Black-friars. The reader will remember the fruitless opposition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London to the establishment of this theatre. Neither their animosity nor their efforts ceased with their first failure. They neglected no opportunity, no means, to attain their end. Finally, in 1608, Sir Henry Montagu, the then Attorney General, gave an opinion that the jurisdiction of the corporation of London extended over the Liberty of the Black-friars, and there was another attempt to dislodge Richard Burbadge, William Shakespeare, and their fellows. Either through lack of title or of influence, it was in vain. The players could not be ousted. Then, if we could accept the evidence of Mr. Collier's document, the Mayor and Aldermen thought of buying out the men whom they could not turn out, and had an estimate made of the value of the Black-friars theatrical property, which proved to be in the bulk worth £7000, of which sum Shakespeare's shares and wardrobe property absorbed £1433 6s. 8d. According to this memorandum Shakespeare's income from his four shares was £133 6s. 8d.; the rent of a wardrobe and properties set down as worth £500 could not have been less than £50; which makes the Black-friars income £183 6 s. 8 d. Reckoning a like return from the Globe, we have £366 13 s. 4 d.; and remembering that Shakespeare had other property, and also a productive pen, Mr. Collier, whose calculation this is, certainly rather underrates than overates his income at £400equal at least to $10,000 now — - yearly. But, alas! this paper, like so many others brought to light by the same hand, and like the professed Southampton letter which refers to the same circumstances, has been pronounced spurious by high, though perhaps not infallible, authority. Yet the conclusions based upon it are sustained * The following is a copy of the memorandum in question. It has been pronounced spurious by Sir Frederic Madden, Mr. T. Duffus Hardy, Mr. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, Professor Brewer (as to whose official positions see the note on p.lxiv). Mr. Richard Giardner, M. W. B. D. D. Turnbull, and Mr. Halliwell. by a letter of unquestioned authenticity in the State Paper Office at London. Mr. John Chamberlain, writ "For avoiding of the playhouse in the Blacke Friers. Impr Richard Burbidge owith the Fee and is alsoe a sharer) therein. His interest he rateth at the grosse summe of 10001 for the Fee and for his foure Shares the summe of 933li 6s 8d Rem Item Laz Fletcher owith three shares weh he rateth at 700li W. Shakspeare asketh for the wardrobe and properties Heminges and Condell eche 2 shares Item Item Joseph Taylor one share and an halfe Ilem foure more playeres with one halfe share unto echel 1933 li 6s Sd 700 li 1433 li 6s 8d 933 li 6s 8d 466 li 13s 4d Moreover, the hired men of the Companie demaund some recompence for their greate lossc and the Widowes and Orphanes of players who are paide by the Sharers at diuers rates & proporcōns soe as in the whole it will coste the Lo. Mayor and Citizens at the least 7000 li" Here may conveniently be added another document from the same source, which rests under even graver imputations against its genuineness. It professes to be a draught or abridged transcript of a warrant, appointing Robert Daiborne, William Shakespeare and others instructors of the Children of the Queen's Revels. But aside from the palæographic condemnation of the paper, its contents have been shown by Mr. Halliwell (in his Curiosities of Shakespearian Criticism, p. 22) to be entirely incongruous with the circumstances under which it professes to have been written. "Right trusty and welbeloved, &c., James, &c. To all Mayors, Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, &c. Whereas the Queene, our dearest wife, hath for her pleasure and recreation appointed her servaunts Robert Daiborne, &c. to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of children, who shall be called the Children of her Majesties Revells, knowe ye that we have appointed and authorized, and by these presents doe appoint and authorize the said Robert Daiborne, William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field, and Edward Kirkham, from time to time to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of children, and them to instruct and exercise in the quality of playing Tragedies, Comedies, &c., by the name of the Children of the Revells to the Queene, within the Blackfryers, in our Citie of London, or els where within our realme of England. Wherefore we will and command you, and everie of you, to permitt her said servaunts to |