Yet, plays and players may be considered, as sightless substances, in Scotland, during that age. Nor, has diligence been able to show in the Scottish literature, any thing like a comedie, historie, or tragedie, from the revival of learning, to the accession of King James. The scurrilities of Lyndsay can no more be considered as legitimate dramas, than the scurril jests of Skelton, "a sharpe satirist indeed," says Puttenham," but with more rayling and scoffery than became a poet laureat "." Philotus, which, when originally printed, in 1603, was entitled, "Ane verie excellent, and delectabill Treatise," was called a comedie, when it was republished in 1612. The marriage of Philotus, as we see it, in this rhapsodical colloquy, can scarce be called " a wedding mannerly modest: Nor ought we to be surprized, that the church of Scotland preferred" a sad funeral feast," to the coarse and immodest dialogues which were presented on the playfield to an unenlightened people. But Lord Stirling was now "weaving warp, and weaving woof," the winding sheet of obscene plays: And, the monarchicke tragedies, which must be allowed to have sentiments that sparkle, though no words that burn, were entitled to the honour of James's acceptance, and to the higher honour of Shakspeare's adoption.

The historian of the English stage has aptly divided his subject into three periods: The first, from the origin of dramatick entertainments, to the appearance of Shakspeare's dramas; the second, during the illumination of the scene, by the sun of Shakspeare; and the third, from the time that this great luminary ceased to give light, and heat, and animation to the

the great offence of the ministers." [History of the Church of Scotland, p. 457.] In this account, there seem to be implied two points; that King James did not send for the English comedians; and that there was not any company of Scottish comedians, in Scotland, during his reign.

8

* The Arte of English Poesie, 1519, p. 50.

theatrick world. Of the first of those periods, much has already been said; of the second, something remains to be added; and of the last, little need be remarked: It has been my constant endeavour, as it will be my subsequent practice, to add the new to the old, rather than to make the old seem new.

The demise of Elizabeth gave a different order to the several parts of our theatrical arrangements. King James is said "to have patronized the stage with as much warmth, as his predecessor:" But, after all the inquiries, which have been hitherto made, it has remained unknown, that a kind of theatrick revolution took place, on the arrival of James from Scotland. While he was bestowing grace on every rank, he showed particular favour to the actors. He accepted the Lord Chamberlain's servants, as his own; the Queen retained the Earl of Worcester's servants, as her's; and Prince Henry took the Earl of Nottingham's players, for his dramatick servants. King James arrived, at the Charterhouse, London, on the 7th of May, 1603; which may be deemed the epoch of that revolution. On the 19th of May he granted the license, which was first published by Rhymer, in 1705, to his servants, Laurence Fletcher, William Shakspeare, Richard Burbadge, Augustine Phillipes, John Hemings, Henrie Condel, William Slye, Robert Armin, and their associates, "freely to exercise the

There is the following passage in Gilbert Dugdale's Time Triumphant, which was printed by R. B. [Robert Barker] in 1604, sign'. B:-" Nay; see the bounty of our all kind soveraigne; not only to the indifferent of worth, and the worthy of honour, did He freely deal about these causes: But, to the mean gave grace; as taking to himself the late Lord Chamberlain's servants, now the King's acters; the Queen, taking to her the Earl of Worster's servants, that are now her acters; and the Prince, their sonne Henry, Prince of Wales, full of hope, took to him the Earl of Nottingham his servants, who are now his acters; so that of Lord's servants, they are now the servants of the King, Queen, and Prince."

faculty of playing comedies, tragedies, histories, interludes, morals, pastorals, stage plaies, as well within their now usual house, called the Globe, as within any convenient places, in any city, and universitie, within his kingdoms, and dominions." Ample, and favourable, as this license was to those servants, it did not give them any exclusive privilege, which could prevent the actors of the Queen, or the servants of the prince, from acting similar plays, within his realms; though they were thus distinguished by the royal license. Of such players, who were still more distinguished, as the original actors of Shakspeare's characters, it may gratify curiosity, to know a little more of the life, and end.

LAURENCE FLETCHER.

Of this personage, who now appeared at the head of the King's servants, in the royal license of 1603, Mr. Malone, the historian of our stage, has said nothing'. Fletcher was probably of St. Saviour's, Southwark; where several families of the name of Fletcher dwelt, as appears from the parish register. He was placed before Shakspeare and Richard Burbadge, in King James's license, as much perhaps by accident, as design. Augustine Phillips, when he made his will, in May, 1605, bequeathed to his fellow, Laurence Fletcher, twenty shillings. And this fellow of Phillips, and of Shakspeare, was buried in St. Saviour's church, on the 12th of September, 16082.

[Fletcher was not one of the actors of Shakspeare's plays, nor is there any evidence to show that he was an actor at all. He might receive the appellation of fellow from being a partner in the property of the theatre. MALONE.]

The parish register records that event in the following manner: "1608, September 12th [was buried] Laurence Fletcher, a man, in the church." I could not find, in the prerogative office, either a will of the deceased, or any administration to his estate.

It does not appear that he ever published any work, either in prose or verse.

WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE.

The great outlines of the life of this illustrious dramatist are sufficiently known. He was born on the 23d of April, 1564; and died, where he was born, on the 23d of April, 1616. Early in life, before he could have acquired any profession, he became a husband, and a father. Whether he ever removed his family to London is uncertain". At what time he first visited London is still more uncertain. He certainly rose to excellence as a player, before the year 1591: And he began to produce those dramas, which have eternized his name, about the year 1591. He was celebrated as a poet in 1594. He became greatly

3 Aubrey has preserved a tradition which is extremely probable, that Shakspeare used to travel, once a year, from Stratford to London, and from London to Stratford: If this tradition be admitted as a fact, it would prove, with strong conviction, that he had his family at Stratford, and his business in London. If documents be produced to prove that one Shakspeare, a player, resided in St. Saviour's parish, Southwark, at the end of the sixteenth, or the beginning of the seventeenth, century; this evidence will not be conclusive proof of the settled residence of Shakspeare: For it is a fact as new as it is curious, that his brother Edmond, who was baptized on the 3d of May, 1580, became a player at The Globe; lived in St. Saviour's; and was buried in the church of that parish: the entry in the register being without a blur, " 1607 December 31, [was buried] Edmond Shakespeare, a player, in the church;" there can be no dispute about the date, or the name, or the profession. It is remarkable, that the parish clerk, who scarcely ever mentions any other distinction of the deceased, than a man, or a woman, should, by I know not what inspiration, have recorded Edmond Shakspeare as a player. There were, consequently, two Shakspeares on the stage, during the same period; as there were two Burbadges, who were also brothers, and who acted on the same theatre. Mr. Malone has, indeed, remarked, that the burial of Edmond Shakspeare does not appear in the parish register of Stratford-upon-Avon. I have not been able to find any notice of Edmond Shakspeare, in the prerogative-office.

distinguished as a dramatist, before the demise of Elizabeth. He was adopted as one of the theatrical servants of King James: And he was placed the second in the list of those players who were specified in the royal license of 1603. In 1605, Augustine Phillips, by his will, recollected Shakspeare, as his fellow, and bequeathed him " a thirty shilling piece in gould,” as a tribute of affection. How long he acted is uncertain; although he continued to write for the stage till the year 1614, in which year he is said to have produced Twelfth-Night, his thirty-fourth play.When he retired from the stage he probably disposed of his property in the theatre; as there is no specifick bequest of his share by the testament which he made on the 25th of March, 1616.

The will of Shakspeare has been often published, though not always with sufficient accuracy. It is not easy to tell who, of all the admirers of our illustrious dramatist, first had the curiosity to look into his will. It is even a point of some difficulty to ascertain when, and by whom, the will of Shakspeare was first published. Mr. Malone, indeed, is studious to reprobate Theobald, for publishing it most blunderingly. It was not published by the player editors in 1623; nor by Rowe, in 1709; nor by Pope, in 1725, or 1728; nor by Theobald, in 1733, or 1740; and he died in 1744; nor was it published by Hanmer, in 1744; nor by Warburton, in 1747: But, it was certainly published, with the original errors, in the Biographia Britannica3, 1763, for the first time, I believe. Why, then, does Mr. Malone accuse Theobald, who was dead before the event, of that publication, and of those errors 1?

3 Volume the Sixth; Part I.

4 Mr. Malone says, "that the name at the top of the margin of the first sheet was probably written by the scrivener who drew the will." The fact, however, is, that this name was