SPECTATOR'S LIBRARY.

Breenspnv.

,The Worker:4W;Riam Shakespeare. The Text formed from an entirely new Collation of the Old Editions; with the Various Readings. Notes, a Life of the Poet, and a History of the Early English Stage. By Payne Collier, Esq.. F.S.A. lo eight

volumes. Vol. I. Whittaker and Co. narrow, The Fortunes of the Falconers. By Mrs. Gordon, Authoress of "Three Nights in a Lifetime." &c. In three volumes Saunders and Otley.

3011111PRoDKNCE,

Trial of Pedro De Zulueta junior, on a charge otSlave.trading under the 5th George IV. cap 113, on Friday the 27th, Saturday the 28th. and Monday the 30th October 1843. at the Central Criminal Court. Old Bailey, London. A full Report from the Short-hand notes qf W. B. Gantry, Esq. With an Address to the Merchants, Manufacturers, and Traders of Great Britain, by Pedro De Zalueta junior, Esq.;

and Documents illustrative of the case Wood and Co.

ME. COLLIER'S SHAKESPEARE.

MR. COLLIER'S handsome edition of the Works of SHAKESPEARE is now completed ; and, besides "The Tempest," "The Two Gentle- men of Verona," and " The Merry Wives of Windsor," the volume before us contains a glossarial Index, the long-looked for Life of the poet, and a condensed account of the English Stage previous to his advent, thrown off from Mr. COLLIER'S" History," with such addi- tional information as later researches have brought to light. The first of these productions exhibits the principal phases in the progress of the English drama to the rising of its great luminary ; and the second brings together all the facts known or inferred up to the present time respecting the life and family of SHAKSPERE. In this point of view, both productions are entitled to much praise ; and the historical sketch presents in an agreeable manner as much information on the subject as general readers either require or care for. The literary merit of the Life is less : it is pervaded by a vein of curious egotism and needless ratiocination, whilst it is deficient in closeness of style and precision of thought ; failings which cause it to overflow with words. Much of the minuteness and something of the jealousy of the verbal critic are also visible. Indeed, the (we believe unconscious) desire of Mr. COLLIER to overturn the conjectures of Mr. KNIGHT, or shake his inferences, proceeds to a length that a more comprehensive logic would have sometimes in- duced him to pause upon. This opposition begins on the title- page and the back-lettering of the volumes. Mr. KNIGHT, on the principle that the great dramatist knew how to spell his own name, adopts the orthography of the poet in the few signatures of his which are extant—Shak-spere. Mr. COLLIER, on the other hand, adheres to the spelling of the bard's literary contemporaries, and of succeeding ages ; and if authority and the knightly etymology be regarded, he is perhaps right—Shake-speare.

Mr. KNIGHT, in his anxiety to make his hero, like Master Robert Shallow, "a gentleman born," asserts that the SHAKSPERE family slid good service to HENRY the Seventh, and intimates that an an- cestor of the poet probably shook a spear in Bosworth field. Mr. COLLIER impugns these facts and conclusions; of which more anon. Tracing up, however, to Mrs. SHAKSPERE'S grandfather, our author admits that he was the brother of a knight : so that there is still gentle blood in the veins of WILLIAM SHAKSPERE, his rival biographers only differing as to the source.

The great point which Mr. KNIGHT so laboured, and on which indeed he founds the whole of his William Shakspere a Biography, we think Mr. COLLIER has overthrown. The picture of the "gentleman farmer," of the lover of books, accomplished for his age and station, superintending the education of his son Wtmaast, and of the literary home where that son might educate himself in the intervals of his school-hours, vanishes "like the baseless fabric of a vision," under the moiling of Mr. COLLIER and the " Shake- 'speare Society." They have got hold of documents which (sup- posing they are authentic) confirm the assertion of MALONE, that old Mr. SHAKSPERE Could DOI write, and support his opinion that during his son's early youth he fell into pecuniary difficulties, if not into absolute poverty. "The Shakespeare Society," says Mr. COLLIER, "has been put in possession of two warrants, granted by John Shakespeare, as Bailiff of Stratford, the one dated the 3d and the other on the 9th December, 11th Elizabeth, (1568,) for the caption of John Ball and Richard Walcar, on account of debts severally due from them; to both of which his mark only is ap- pended." The Society has also obtained two other documents of a date some ten years later. In 1578, Mr. SHAKSPERE was obliged to mortgage some property of his wife's for 401.; and in 1579 he sold "his wife's interest in two tenements in Snitterfield to Robert Webbe, for the small sum of 41." To these deeds are affixed the .seals and marks of both husband and wife ; Mr. SHAKSPERE making the usual +, Mrs. SIIAKSPERE a something which may stand for M. (Mary.)

The circumstance of the poet's first child having been born about six months after his marriage is too clear to be denied ; but -Mr. KNIGHT assumes that a betrothal took place before, and that the old folks might have clung to the usages of the Roman Catho- lic Church, although complying with the Act of Parliament Esta- blishment. This last opinion of Mr. KNIGHT receives a strong confirmation from a document discovered by Mr. LEMON in the State Paper Office, and by that gentleman brought under Mr. COLLIER'S notice. There are strong grounds for supposing that old Mr. SHAKSPERE was a relapsed Papist.

" A document," says Mr. COLLIER, "has recently been discovered in the State Paper Office, which is highly interesting with respect to the religious tenets or worldly circumstances of Shakespeare's father in 1392. Sir Thomas Lacy, Sir Folk Greville, Sir Henry Goodere, Sir Jan Harrington, and four -others, having been appointed commissioners to make inquiries 'touching all such persons' as were Jesuits, seminary priests, fugitives, or recusantes? in the county of Warwick, sent to the Privy Council what they call their ' second certificate,' on the 25th September 1592. It is divided into different beads, according to the respective hundreds, parishes, &c.; and each page 111 signed by them. One of these divisions applies to Stratford-upon-Avon; and the return of names there is thus introduced-

' The names of all watch Recusantes as have bens heartofore presented for not cominge rnonetblie to the church, according to her Majesties lawes, and yet are thought to forbeare the church for debt, and for feare of processe, or for some other worse faultes, or for age, sicknes, or impo- tencie of bodie.'

The names which are appended to this introduction are the following- ' Mr. John Wheeler, William Bainton, John Weeler, his son, Mr. John Shackspere, Richard Harrington, William Fluellen, Mr. Nicholas Barneshurste,

George Bardolphe; ' Thomas James, alias Gyles, and opposite to them, separated by a bracket, we read these words— 'it is sayd, that these last nine coome not to churche for feare of processe of debte.'

Here we find the name of Mr. John Shakespeare' either as a recusant, or as forbearing the church,' on account of the fear of process for debt, or on account of age, sickness, or impotency of body,' mentioned in the introduc- tion to the document. The question is, to which cause we are to attribute his absence; and with regard to process for debt, we are to recollect that it could not be served on Sunday, so that apprehension of that kind need not have kept biro away from church on the Sabbath. Neither was it likely that his son, who was at this date profitably employed in London as an actor and author, and who three years before was a sharer in the Blackfriars Theatre, would have allowed his father to continue so distressed for money as not to be able to at- tend the usual place of divine worship. Therefore, although John Shake- speare was certainly in great pecuniary eifficulties at the time bin son William quitted Stratford, we altogether reject the notion that that son had permitted his father to live in comparative want, while he himself possessed more than

• • competence.

" We ought not, however, to omit to add, that if John Shakespeare were in- firm in 1592, or if he were harassed and threatened by creditors, neither the one circumstance nor the other prevented him from being employed in August 1592, (in what particular capacity or for what precise purpose is not stated,) to assist Thomas Trussell, gentleman,' and Richard Sponer and others,' in taking an inventory of the goods and chattels of Henry Feelde, of Stratford, tanner, after his decease. A contemporary copy of the original document has recently been placed in the hands of the Shakespeare Society for publication ; but the fact, and not the details, is all that seems of importance here. In the heading of the paper our poet's father is called Mr. John Shaksper,' and at the end we find his name as 'John Shaksper senior ': this appears to be the only in- stance in which the addition of • senior' was made ; and the object of it might be to distinguish him more effectually from John Shakespeare, the shoemaker in Stratford, with whom, of old perhaps, as in modern times, he was now and then confounded. The fact itself may be material in deciding whether John Shakespeare, at the age of sixty-two, was or was not so ' aged, sick, or impo- tent of body,' as to be unable to attend Protestant divine worship. It cer- tainly does not seem likely that he would have been selected for the perform- ance of such a duty, however trifling, if he had been so apprehensive of snot as not to be able to leave his dwelling, or if he had been very infirm from sick- ness or old age. " Whether he were or were not a member of the Protestant Reformed Church, it is not to be disputed that his children, all of whom were born between 1558 and 1580, were baptized at the ordinary and established place of worship in the parish. That his son William was educated, lived, and died a Protestant, we have no doubt."

If we might be permitted to add a remark to those already made upon the subject of SHAKSPERE, we should say, may it not be as reasonable to suppose that his father's removal from the post of Alderman really originated in religious scruples as much as in his poverty ; and may not that pecuniary difficulty (for it does not seem to have been actual poverty) have been brought about by his backsliding to a disfavoured religion ?

The great modern point raised about SHAKSPERE himself, is that touching his domestic character. One later writer represents him as leaving his wife and family to country obscurity whilst he was luxuriating in London, like HAYNES HATLY"S gentleman butterfly "of no very good repute." This view Mr. KNIGHT wrathfully op- poses : Mr. COLLIER is silent, or "hints a fault"; but we think he might possibly have stood up for SHAKSPERE as a family-man, but that the rival editor had forestalled the proof. It appears that in 1609 SHAKSPERE was assessed to the poor of the Liberty of the Clink, in Southwark, as high as any one in the list, and one-third more than "the Ladye Buckley." vHere, argues Mr. KNIGHT, is a refutation of these slanders. What could SHAKSPERE, living en bachelier, want with such a house as this rate implies ? He evi- dently brought Mrs. SHAKSPERE and family to town in the London season. Not so fast, quoth the cautious Mr. COLLIER; maybe he was assessed not as a man but as a manager. " It is too hastily inferred that he was rated at this sum upon a dwelling, house occupied by bitnself. This is very possibly the fact ; but, on the other hand, the truth may he, that he paid the rate not for any habitation, good or bad, large or small, but in respect of his theatrical property in the Globe, which was situated in the same district. The parish-register of Sr. Saviour's es- tablishes, that in 1601 the Churchwardens had been instructed by the Vestry ' to talk with the players ' respecting the payment of tithes and contributions to the maintenance of the poor ; and it is not very unlikely that some arrange- ment was made under which the sharers in the Globe, and Shakespeare as one of them, would be assessed." The assumed ancestral honours of Bosworth field are connected with SHAKSPERE'S coat of arms ; which Mr. COLLIER, passing with his decision at the opening of the Life, thus handles in a more advanced stage of the story. "Although John Shakespeare could not write his name, it has generally been stated, and believed, that while he filled the office of Bailiff he obtained a grant of arms from Clarencieux Cooke, who was in office from 1.566 to 1592. -We have considerable doubt of this fact; partly arising out of the circumstance that although Cooke's original book, in which he entered the arms he granted, hart been preserved in the Heralds College, we find in it no note of any such con- cession to John Shakespeare. It is true that this book might not contain memoranda of all the arms Cooke bad granted, but it is a circumstance deserving notice, that in this case such an entry is wanting. A confirmation of these arms was made in 1596; but we cannot help thinking, with Malone, that this instrument was obtained at the personal instance of the poet, who had then actually, purchased, or was on the eve of purchasing, New Place (or 'the great house, as it was also called) in Sttatford. The confirmation states, that the heralds had been by credible report informed,' that 'the parents and late anteeessoss ' of John Shakespeare were for their valiant and faithful services .advanced and rewarded of the moat prudent prince Henry the Seventh '; but, as has been before stated, on examining the rolls of that reign, we can discover no trace of advancement or reward to any person of the name of Shakespeare. It is true that the Ardens, or Arden's, were so ' advanced and rewarded ; and these, though not strictly the parents,' were certainly the antecessore ' of William Shakespeare. In 1599, an exemplification of arms was procured ; and in this document it is asserted that the'great-grandfather ' of John Shakespeare had been • advanced and rewarded with lands and tenements ' by Henry the Seventh. Our poet's great-grandfather' by the mother's side was so advanced and rewarded ' ; and we know that he did faithful and approved service ' to that most prudent prince.' " Another point, though one of less importance, is, that it is stated, in a note at the foot of the confirmation of 1596, that John Shakespeare ' showeth ' a patent • under Clarence Cooke's hand': the word seems originally to have been sent, over which showeth ' was written : if the original patent, under Cooke's hand, bad been sent to the Heralds College in 1596, there could have been little question about it ; but the substituted word showeth ' is more indefinite, and may mean only that the party applying for the confirmation alleged that Cooke had granted such a coat of arms. That William Shakespeare could not have procured a grant of arms for himself in 1596 is highly probable, from the fact that he was an actor, (a profession then much looked down upon,) and not of a rank in life to entitle him to it : be, therefore, may have very fairly and properly put forward his father's name and claims as having been Bailiff of Stratford and a Justice of Peace,' and coupled that fact with the deserts and rewards of the Ardens under Henry the Seventh, one of whom was his mater- nal 'great-grandfather,' and all of whom, by reason of the marriage of his father with an Arden, were his antecessora.' " It is really a matter of little moment whether John Shakespeare did or did not obtain a grant of arms while be was Bailiff of Stratford ; but we are strongly inclined to think that be did not, and that the assertion that Le did, and that he was worth 500/. in 1596, originated with Sir W. Dethick, when he subsequently wanted to make out his own vindication from the charge of having conceded arms to various persons without due caution and inquiry."

Whether old Mr. SHAKSPERE did or did not get a coat of arms, is, as Mr. COLLIER remarks, a "matter of little moment "; but the charge implied against SDAKSPERE himself is of some moment to those who think the poet's reputation for common sense and common honesty of any consequence. Does not Mr. COLLIER see that his argument makes out the national poet to be a foolish parvenu, ambitious of a distinction he has so contemptuously ri- diculed in connexion with poor Master Shallow, and, not being able to attain it b7 fair means, resorting to very foul ? According to Mr. COLLIER s argument, his own position would not have pro- cured him this honour ; so he sets about procuring it by forgery, false beyond many forgeries, for the recitals are a series of lies, and the main fact alleged is a lie, as well as the instrument itself. Mr. COLLIER, Mr. COLLIER! this requires reconsideration ; for we can- not give in to the idea that "Garter of that day, or his assistants, made the confusion."

Mr. KNIGHT, by a skilful induction from internal and external evi- dence, concludes that SHAKSEERE visited Scotland in 1601; drawing his imagery and the mere material of the witchcraft of Macbethfrom local scenery and recent occurrences. Mr. COLLIER thinks the poet never was in Scotland, though he might have been ; but if he was, it was most likely not in 1601. As Mr. COLLIER, however, shows that part of the company to which SHAICSPERE belonged was in Scotland during four seasons, and playing before the Court, (1589, 1699, 1600, 1601,) we think the probability is in favour of the great poet's having crossed the Tweed. We believe we have touched upon the larger points mooted by Mr. COLLIER in his new "Life of William Shakespeare." The minuter but curious questions of dramatic exploits and occurrences, as well as the inferences respecting SHAKSEERE'S whereabout at particular times, and the probable, possible, or conjectural circum- stances of his personal career, we must leave to the reader's own examination. In spite of the blemishes of style and taste which we have freely indicated, Mr. COLLIER is entitled to the praise of having brought together all the known facts that in any way bear upon the life of SHAKSEERE and he has elucidated many new facts relating to his theme even at the last minute, by an industry which might be called enthusiastic, but that, unlike enthusiasm in gene.- ral, it " ne'er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on."