cause of an estrangement, for it would have been felt only for a year or two, and if older in point of years, she was younger than her husband in strength, as appears from her outliving him by seven years. It is in favour of the same side of the question, that Shakespeare always made Stratford his permanent home, and retired to settle there with his family after he had risen to affluence. On the whole, however, be the case as it may, it is clear the home influences never had any great power in moulding the character of the great dramatist.

What business Shakespeare followed after from and even before the time of his marriage till he set out for London, is matter of the utmost uncertainty. If we may judge from an incident which happened near the close of this period, his manner of life must have been somewhat unsettled. "He had," as Rowe tells us, "by a misfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen into ill company, and amongst them some that made a frequent practice of deer-stealing engaged him more than once in robbing a park that belonged to Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote, near Stratford. For this he was prosecuted by that gentleman, as he thought, somewhat too severely; and in order to revenge that ill-usage, he made a ballad upon him." Additional circumstances are given in other accounts, such as that Shakespeare was confined in the keeper's lodge after his detection, and that the ballad written in ridicule of Sir Thomas was stuck upon his park gate. There can be no reasonable doubt that this story is true in the main. Besides a concurrence of traditions coming through different

channels, there is strong evidence of its truth from certain passages in the "Merry Wives of Windsor," and in Part ii. of "Henry IV." From an allusion in the latter play, Act iii., Scene 2, it is perfectly evident that Justice Shallow is intended to be a caricature of Sir Thomas Lucy. Falstaff says, "If the young dace be a bait for the old pike, I see no reason, in the law of nature, but I may snap at him." The point of the allusion here lies in the fact that three luces, or pike-fishes, were emblazoned on Sir Thomas Lucy's coat-of-arms. At the commencement of the "Merry Wives of Windsor," Justice Shallow exclaims: "Sir Hugh, persuade me not: I will make a Star-chamber matter of it "—namely, of Falstaff's having beaten his men, killed his deer, and broken open his lodge. Bardolf, Nym, and Pistol, followers of Falstaff, are also called " coney-catching rascals;" and rabbit-stealing is associated, too, with deer-stealing in the tradition. Slender's reference to "the dozen white luces" in the coat of Shallow's ancestors, identifies the latter with Lucy, although a dozen is put for three. Collier points out that white refers to "three luces hariant, argent," of the coat-of-arms of the Lucys.

From the cutting sarcasms levelled against Sir Thomas Lucy, and from allusions to the killing of his deer, and his intention to make a Star-chamber matter of it, we cannot avoid the inference that Shakespeare had been involved in an unpleasant deer-stealing affair, and that his resentment had been kindled by the treatment he received in consequence. We are not to consider deer-stealing as an act of robbery committed for gain,

but rather as closely allied to a breach of the gamelaws. The story of Davies, that Lucy had Shakespeare often whipped and sometimes imprisoned for stealing venison and rabbits, is palpably false. Shakespeare's making merry of the pompous Justice is totally inconsistent with the soreness which he must have felt towards Sir T. Lucy if he had been whipped and imprisoned at his instance. Nor would the dramatist, when he acquired a fortune, and set up as a Gentleman, have returned to his native Stratford to do so, had there been any stain on his fair fame, such as the story of Davies would make out.

Probably Rowe's statement, that Lucy's persecution was so bitter, owing to the ballad stuck on his gate, as to compel Shakespeare to leave his business and family in Warwickshire for some time, and shelter himself in London, is so far correct. Most likely this was the event which decided him; but we have good reason to conclude that there were other grounds for his taking the course he did. Halliwell* has proved, "that in March, 29 Eliz., 1587, Shakespeare's father was in prison, for on the 29th day of that month he produced a writ of habeas corpus in the Stratford Court of Record." Previous to this he had been in pecuniary difficulties.

Shakespeare, ere the time of his leaving for London, had seen that his father's agricultural profession held out no prospects whatever for him, and if he followed the business of attorney, or some other such like, as his

*Page 134 compare with pp. 43, 44.

only profession, and not as a mere secondary one to the other, he had no prospect of success, not to speak of its being thoroughly distasteful to him. He had, no doubt, come to the conclusion that he must seek his fortune in some other sphere than the narrow, ill-conditioned one of Stratford-upon-Avon. The growing ambition of a mind like his would make him gravitate towards the metropolis, the only place where a new and an aspiring genius could find the outward conditions for its development. He probably required only the pressure of necessity to make him face the difficulties of a journey, and an entrance on a new mode of life. Aubrey is silent about the deer-stealing affair, and says merely, "This William, being inclined naturally to poetry and acting, came to London, I guess about eighteen, and was an actor at one of the play-houses, and did act exceedingly well." Besides Shakespeare's natural inclination to poetry and acting, there are other ways of accounting for his subsequent connection with the Blackfriars Theatre in London. As we learn from the accounts of the Chamberlain, the corporation of Stratford gave considerable countenance to the representation of plays during the period of Shakespeare's boyhood and youth. In 1569, when Shakespeare was five years old, and his father chief magistrate, the Queen's players received 9s. The Earl of Leicester's players, of whom James Burbage was the leader, received 6s. 8d. in 1573. In the following year, the Earl of Warwick's men were paid 17s., and those of the Earl of Worcester 5s. 7d. To omit mention of others in the intermediate years, in 1587 no fewer than five companies received

gratuities. We also happen to know how it came about that corporation funds were expended on such objects. In 1639, R. Willis, then seventy-five, and consequently born in the same year with Shakespeare, published a volume called "Mount Tabor," in which the following passage occurs, explanatory of that circumstance:-"In the city of Gloucester, the manner is (as I think it is in other like corporations), that when players of enterludes come to town, they first attend the mayor, to inform him what nobleman's servants they are, and so get license for their public playing; and if the mayor like the actors, or would show respect to their lord and master, he appoints them to play their first play before himself and the aldermen and common council of the city; and that is called the mayor's play, where every one that will, comes in without money, the mayor giving the players a reward as he thinks fit, to show respect unto them." It is easy to see, from the numerous representations which took place at Stratford, that Shakespeare must have been quite familiar with plays and players; and it is also worthy of note, that several of the players with whom he was afterwards associated belonged to Stratford or to the immediate neighbourhood. It has been ascertained that James Burbage, one of the original builders of the Blackfriars Theatre, came from Warwickshire. His son, Richard Burbage, was a friend of Shakespeare's subsequently, and acted many of the chief characters in his plays. Thomas Greene, a comic actor, known as "Tu quoque," came from Stratford, and perhaps there were others.