slowe states that he paid to John Day on May 28, 1602, the sum of forty shillings in full payment for the Bristol Tragedy, "written by himself." Collier, the editor of the Diary, adds the following explanatory note: “The meaning of the words 'written by himself' is most likely that Day was the author of it, without any coadjutors." As a matter of fact then, not to be gainsaid, it appears that during the period from 1590 to 1610, plays, for the most part, were written by collaboration, and the illustrious men whose joint labors enriched the theatrical manager were poverty-stricken fellows who sold their poetry and wit for paltry sums. As Collier, in his introduction to the Diary, says, "Nothing was more common than for dramatists to unite their abilities and resources; and when a piece on any account was to be brought out with peculiar despatch, three, four, five, and perhaps even six poets engaged themselves upon different portions of it." Robert Burton, who probably knew some of these scholarly poets, describes them and their condition very accurately in his "Anatomy of Melancholy." "To say truth, 'tis the common fortune of most scholars to be servile and poor, to complain pitifully, and lay open their wants to their respectless patrons; and which is too common in those dedicatory epistles, for hope of gain to lie, flatter, and with hyperbolical eulogiums and commendations, to magnify and extol an illiterate unworthy idiot whom they should rather, as Machiavel observes, vilify and rail at downright for his most notorious villainies and vices. They are like Indians—they have stores of gold, but know not the worth of it; for I am of Synesius' opinion that King Hiero got more by Simonides' acquaintance than Simonides did by his. They have their best education, good institution, sole qualification from us, and when they have done well, their honor and immortality from us. We are the living tombs, registers and as so many trumpeters of their fames. What was Achilles without Homer? Alexander without Arrian and Curtius? Who had known the Cæsars, but for Suetonius and Dion? 'Before great Agamemnon reigned Reign'd kings as great as he and brave In endless night they sleep unwept, unknown, Poverty is the Muses' patrimony, and as that poetical divinity teacheth us, when Jupiter's daughters were each of them married, the Muses alone were left solitary, forsaken of all suitors, and I believe it was because they had no portion. Ever since, all their followers are poor, forsaken, and left unto themselves. Insomuch that as Petronius argues, you shall likely know them by their clothes. There came,' said he, 'by chance unto my company a fellow not very spruce to look on. I asked him what he was; he answered, a poet. I demanded again why he was so ragged? He told me that this kind of learning never made any man rich."" CHAPTER IV. WILLIAM SHAKSPER HAS NO PLACE IN HENSLOWE'S DIARY. "To my knowledge, I never in my life did look on him." -King Richard II, ii, 3. The fact that William Shaksper's name nowhere appears in any part of Henslowe's Diary, while having some weight as against his authorship of the plays, would not of itself have much significance were it not for the fact, not much known and heretofore not dwelt upon, that the company of which Henslowe was the manager and chief proprietor, owned and purchased some of the Shakespeare plays, and if Shaksper had written them or any part of them, or had disposed of his right and title to them as author, his name would certainly have appeared in the Diary. Titus Andronicus appeared as a new play and was acted at Henslowe's theatre for the first time on the twenty-third day of January, 1593. That it appeared as an entirely new play is conclusively proved by Henslowe's entry to that effect on the outer margin to designate it as such; and that it appeared on that day is clear from the following entry: "R'd at titus and Ondronicus the 23 of Jenewary 1593 3 pounds 8 shillings." This entry meant that this sum represented the theatre receipts for the first presentation of the tragedy. In commenting on this entry, Collier, the editor employed by the Shakespeare Society, says, in a note at page 33 of the Diary: "Elsewhere sometimes spelt 'Tittus and Ondronicus' Malone had no doubt that this was the original Titus Andronicus before Shakespeare touched it (Shaksper by Bosw. 3, 300). It may be so or it may have been a distinct play on the same subject. Whatever it was, it is a novel and material fact that it was a new play on the 23 Jan. 1593. Henslowe placed ne in the outer margin to denote it." Here, then, is, as Collier says, a potent fact very clear and apparent that a play called Titus Andronicus was written prior to January 23, 1593, and put on the boards at that date, running through that season and the succeeding year also as the Diary shows. Now, while it was all right for Malone to say that this was the original Titus Andronicus, because the presumption, unless contradicted and overcome, would warrant that assertion in the guise of an opinion and a very decided opinion, yet he had no warrant of fact or presumption to assert that William Shaksper had touched it. Where does it appear in all the history of the times that the play of Titus Andronicus was ever amended, revised, or dressed by William Shaksper? It was a mere guess by Malone; and Collier, confounded by "the novel and material entry," hazards the guess that it might have been "a distinct play on the same subject." I put it to the unprejudiced reader that the natural hypothesis, founded on the unimpeachable statement in the Diary, is that the Titus Andronicus of the Diary was the Titus Andronicus of the plays, unless that hypothesis is destroyed by satisfactory evidence to the contrary. On page 34 of the Diary it is shown that the tragedy of King Lear was acted on the sixth day of April, 1593. The entry is as follows: "R'd at King Leare the 6 of Aprell 1593 XXXVIII s." The name of William Shaksper is not mentioned at all in connection with this play, and we are treated, in a foot note, to the following positive opinion of the editor that "this King Lear was certainly a much older play than Shakespeare's King Lear, and at this date our great dramatist was not one of the Queen's men." The dictum of Collier is utterly worthless, because it is not substantiated by any fact in support of it. The Diary does not mention Shaksper either as author, mender or reviser. The play could not have been a popular one, since it does not appear to have been repeated, and it would not be popular now if put upon the stage. Henry the Fifth was acted for the first time on May 14, 1592, as is clearly shown on page 26 of the Diary. "Malone," says the editor in a note, "takes no notice of this play, which at least was the same in subject as Shakespeare's work. Possibly he read it 'Harey the VI,' but it is clearly 'Harey the 5th.' This is the piece to which Nash alluded in his 'Pierce Penniless' published in 1592; and the famous victories of Henry 5 was entered at Stationer's Hall to be printed in 1594. Malone was not aware that any such historical drama was mentioned by Henslowe." It was a very popular piece, for it was acted nine times in the winter of 1595 and in 1596, and brought good receipts to the company. The inventory of the goods of My Lord Admiral's men, set out at page 271 of the Diary, recites that in the year 1598 the doublet and velvet gown of Harry the fifth were "gone and lost," while at page 276 it is shown that the company, on the 13th of March, 1598, was supplied with a velvet gown for Harry and a satin doublet laid with golden lace, indicating that |