with respect to the perfon to whom our poet bequeathed this legacy, who, we find from his will, was his daughter, not his fifter: but though Aubrey was miftaken as to the perfon, his information with respect to the amount of the legacy was perfectly correct; for 300l. was the precife fum which Shakspeare left to his fecond daughter, Judith. In like manner, I am ftrongly inclined to think that the laft affertion contains, though not the truth, yet fomething like it: I mean, that Shakspeare had been employed for fome time in his younger years as a teacher in the country; though Dr. Farmer has inconteftably proved, that he could not have been a teacher of Latin. I have already fuggefted my opinion, that before his coming to London he had acquired fome share of legal knowledge in the office of a petty country conveyancer, or in that of the steward of fome manerial court. It is not neceffary here to repeat the reasons on which that opinion is founded. If he began to apply to this ftudy at the age of eighteen, two years afterwards he might have been fufficiently converfant with conveyances to have taught others the forms of fuch legal affurances as are ufually prepared by country attorneys; and perhaps fpent two or three years in this employment before he removed from Stratford to London. Some uncertain rumour of this kind might have continued to the middle of the last century; and by the time it reached Mr. Aubrey, our poet's original occupation was changed from a fcrivener's to that of a school-master. I now proceed to the more immediate object of our prefent inquiry; our poet's merit as an actor. "Being inclined naturally (fays Mr. Aubrey) to poetry and acting, he came to London, I gueffe about 18, and was an actor at one of the playhouses, and did act exceedingly well. Now Ben Jonfon never was a good actor, but an excellent inftructor.” The first observation that I fhall make on this account is, that the latter part of it, which informs us that Ben Jonfon was a bad actor, is inconteftably confirmed by one of the comedies of Decker; and therefore, though there were were no other evidence, it might be plaufibly inferred that Mr. Aubrey's information concerning our poet's powers on the stage was not lefs accurate. But in this inftance I am not under the neceffity of refting on fuch an inference; for I am able to produce the teftimony of a contemporary in fupport of Shakspeare's hiftrionick merit. In the preface to a pamphlet entitled KindeHartes Dreame, published in December 1592, which I have already had occafion to quote for another purpose, the author, Henry Chettle, who was himself a dramatick writer, and well acquainted with the principal poets and players of the time, thus fpeaks of Shakspeare: "The other, whom at that time I did not fo much fpare, as fince I wish I had, for that as I have moderated the hate of living writers, and might have used my own difcretion, (especially in fuch a cafe, the author [Robert Greene] being dead,) I am as forry as if the original fault had been my fault; because my selfe have seen his demeanour no less civil than he EXCELLENT in the quali tie be profeffes: befides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honeftie, and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art." To those who are not converfant with the language of our old writers, it may be proper to obferve, that the words, "the qualitie he profeffes," particularly denote his profeffion as an actor. The latter part of the paragraph indeed, in which he is praised as a good man and an elegant writer, fhews this: however, the following paffage in Stephen Goffon's Schoole of Abufe, 1579, in which the very fame words occur, will put this matter beyond a doubt. "Over-lafhing in apparell (fays Goffon) is fo common a fault, that the verye hyerlings of fome of our plaiers, which stand at the reverfion of vi. s. by the weeke, jet under gentlemen's nofes in futes of filke, exercifing themselves in prating on the ftage, and 5 That by the words The other, was meant Shakspeare, has been already fhewn in the Effay on the order of bis plays, Vol. I. Part I. P. 274. common fcoffing when they come abrode; where they looke afkance at every man of whom the fonday before they begged an almes. I fpeak not this, as though every one that profeffeth the qualitie, fo abused him felte; for it is wel knowen, that fome of them are fober, difcreet, properly learned, honest householders, and citizens well thought on amonge their neighbours at home, though the pride of their fhadowes (I meane thofe hangebyes whome they fuccour with ftipend) cause them to bee fomewhat talked of abrode.” Thus early was Shakspeare celebrated as an actor, and thus unfounded was the information which Mr. Rowe obtained on this fubject. Wright, a more diligent inquirer, and who had better opportunities of gaining theatrical intelligence, had faid about ten years before, that he had heard our author was a better poet than an actor;" but this defcription, though probably true, may still leave him a confiderable portion of merit in the latter capacity for if the various powers and peculiar excellencies of all the actors from his time to the prefent, were united in one man, it may well be doubted, whether they would conftitute a performer whofe merit should entitle him to "bench by the fide" of Shakspeare as a poet. A paffage indeed in Lodge's Incarnate Devills of the age, 1596, has been pointed out, as levelled at our poet's performance of the Ghoft in Hamlet. But this in my apprehenfion is a mistake. The ridicule intended to be conveyed by the paffage in queftion was, I have no doubt, aimed at the actor who performed the part of the Ghoft in fome miferable play which was produced before Shakspeare commenced either actor or writer. fuch a play once exifted, I have already fhewn to be highly probable; and the tradition tranfmitted by Betterton, that our poet's performance of the Ghoft in his own Hamlet was his chef d'oeuvre, adds fupport to my opinion. That In the margin this cautious puritan adds-" Some players modeft, if I be not deceived.” That That Shakspeare had a perfect knowledge of his art, is proved by the inftructions which are given to the player in Hamlet, and by other paffages in his works; which, in addition to what I have already stated, incline me to think that the traditional account tranfmitted by Mr. Rowe, relative to his powers on the stage, has been too haftily credited. In the celebrated scene between Hamlet and his mother, fhe thus addresses him: "Alas, how is't with you? "That you do bend your eye on vacancy, "And with the incorporeal air do hold difcourfe? "Starts up, and ftands on end.-Whereon do you look? "Ham. On him! on him! look you, how pale he glares! "His form and cause conjoin'd, preaching to ftones, "Would make them capable. Do not look upon me, "Left with this piteous action, you convert "My ftern effects: then what I have to do "Will want true colour; tears perchance for blood." Can it be imagined that he would have attributed these lines to Hamlet, unless he was confident that in his own part he could give efficacy to that piteous action of the Ghoft, which he has fo forcibly defcribed? or that the preceding lines fpoken by the Queen, and the defcription of a tragedian in King Richard III. could have come from the pen of an ordinary actor? "Rich. Come, coufin, can't thou quake and change thy colour? "Murther thy breath in middle of a word? "And then again begin, and ftop again, "As if thou wert diftraught, and mad with terror? "Buck. Tut, I can counterfeit the deep tragedian; Speak, and look big, and pry on every fide, Tremble and fart at wagging of a straw, "Intending deep fufpicion: ghaftly looks "Are at my fervice, like enforced miles; "And both are ready in their offices, "At any time, to grace my ftratagems." I do not, however, believe, that our poet played parts of the first rate, though he probably diftinguished himfelf by whatever he performed. If the names of the actors prefixed to Every Man in his humour were arranged in the fame order as the perfons of the drama, he must have reprefented Old Knowell; and if we may give credit to an anecdote related in a former page, he was the Adam in his own As you like it. Perhaps he excelled in reprefenting old men. The following contemptible lines written by a contemporary, about the year 1611, might lead us to fuppofe that he allo acted Duncan in Macbeth, and the parts of King Henry the Fourth, and King Henry the Sixth: "To our English Terence, Mr. William Shakespeare. "Some fay, good Will, which I in fport do fing, "Hadft thou not play'd fome kingly parts in iport, "Thou hadst been a companion for a king, "And been a king among the meaner fort. "Some others raile, but raile as they think fit, "Thou haft no railing but a raigning wit; "And honesty thou fow'ft, which they do reape, "So to increase their stock which they do keepe." The Scourge of Folly, by John Davies, of Hereford, no date. RICHARD BURBADGE, the most celebrated tragedian of our author's time, was the fon of James Burbadge, who was also an actor, and In writing this performer's name I have followed the spelling used by his brother, who was a witness to his will; but the name ought rather to be written Burbidge, (as it often formerly was,) being manifestly an abbreviation or corruption of Borough-bridge. perhaps |