as ftrongly indicating that the fum laft mentioned was a very confiderable produce on any one reprefentation at the Blackfriars or Globe playhouse. The office-book which I have fo often quoted, has fully confirmed my conjecture. The custom of paffing a final cenfure on plays at their first exhibition,' is as ancient as the time of our author; for no less than three plays of his rival, Ben Jonfon, appear to have been deservedly 7 The cuftom of expreffing difapprobation of a play, and interrupting the drama, by the noife of catcals, or at leaft by imitating the tones of a cat, is probably as ancient as Shakspeare's time; for Decker in his Guls Hornebook, counfels the gallant, if he wishes to difgrace the poet, "to whew at the children's action, to whistle at the fongs, and mew at the paffionate speeches." See also the induction to The Ifle of Gulls, a comedy, 1606: "Either fee it all or none; for 'tis grown into a cuftom at plays, if any one rife, (especially of any fashionable fort,) about what ferious bufinefs foever, the reft, thinking it in diflike of the play, (though he never thinks it,) cry- mew,-by Jesus, vile,'—and leave the poor heartless children to fpeak their epilogue to the empty feats." 8 Sejanus, Catiline, and The New Inn. Of the two former, Jonfon's Ghoft is thus made to fpeak in an epilogue to Every Man in his Humour, written by Lord Buckhurft, about the middle of the Jast century: "Hold, and give way, for I myself will speak; "And add new faults ftill to the great offence "Your ancestors fo rafhly did commit, Against the mighty powers of art and wit, "When they condemn'd those noble works of mine, The title-page of The New Inn, is a fufficient proof of its condemnation. Another piece of this writer does not feem to have met with a very favourable reception; for Mr. Drummond of Hawthornden (Jonfon's friend) informs us, that "when the play of The Silent Woman was firit acted, there were found verses, after, on the ftage, against him, [the author,] concluding, that that play was well named The Silent Woman, because there was never one man to fay plaudite to it." Drummond's Works, fol. p. 226. damned; and Fletcher's Faithful Shepherdefs, and The Knight of the burning Peftle, written by him and Beaumont, underwent the fame fate.3 It is not eafy to afcertain what were the emoluments of a fuccefsful actor in the time of Shakspeare. They had not then annual benefits, as at prefent.* The clear emoluments of the theatre, after deducting the nightly expences for lights, men occafionally hired for the evening, &c. which in Shakspeare's houfe was but forty-five fhillings, were divided into fhares, of which part belonged to the proprietors, The term, as well as the practice, is ancient. See the epilogue to The Unfortunate Lovers, by Sir W. D'Avenant, 1643: 66 Our poet - will never with to fee us thrive, "If by an humble epilogue we ftrive "To court from you that privilege to-day, "Which you fo long have had, to damn a play." See in p. 227, (n. 3,) Verfes addreffed to Fletcher on his Faithful Shepherdess. 3 See the epiftle prefixed to the first edition of The Knight of the burning Peftle, in 1613. 4 Cibber fays in his Apology, p. 96," Mrs. Barry was the first perfon whofe merit was diftinguifhed by the indulgence of having an annual benefit-play, which was granted to her alone, if I mistake not, first in King James's time; and which became not common to others, till the divifion of this company, after the death of King William's queen Mary." But in this as in many other facts he is inaccurate; for it appears from an agreement entered into by Dr. D'Avenant, Charles Hart, Thomas Betterton, and others, dated October 14, 1681, that the actors had then benefits. By this agreement five shillings, apiece, were to be paid to Hart and Kynaston the players," for every day there fhall be any tragedies or comedies or other reprefentations acted at the Duke's theatre in Salisbury-court, or wherever the company fhall act, during the refpective lives of the faid Charles Hart and Edward Kynafton, excepting the days the young men or young women play for their own profit only." Gildon's Life of Betterton, who were called housekeepers, and the remainder was divided among the actors, according to their rank and merit. I fufpect that the whole clear receipt was divided into forty fhares, of which perhaps the housekeepers or proprietors had fifteen, the actors twenty-two, and three were devoted to the purchase of new plays, dreffes, &c. From Ben Jonfon's Poetafter, it fhould feem that one of the performers had feven fhares and a half; but of what integral fum is not mentioned. The perfon alluded to, (if any person was alluded to, which is not certain,) muft, I think, have been a proprietor, as well as a principal actor. Our poet in his Hamlet fpeaks of a whole fhare, as no contemptible emolument; and from the fame play we learn that fome of the performers had only half a fhare. Others probably had ftill less. "Tucca. Fare thee well, my honeft penny-biter: commend me to feven fares and a half, and remember to-morrow.-—If you lack a fervice, you fhall play in my name, rafcals; [alluding to the custom of actors calling themfelves the fervants of certain noblemen,] but you fhall buy your own cloth, and I'll have two shares for my countenance." Poetafter, 1602. 6" Would not this, fir, and a foreft of feathers, (if the reft of my fortunes turn Turk with me,) with two Provencial rofes on my razed fhoes, get me a fellowship in a cry of players, fir? Hr. Half a fhare. "Ham. A whole fhare, I." Hamlet, A&t III. fc. ii. In a poem entitled I would and I would not, by B. N. 1614, the writer makes a player utter a with to poffefs five shares in every play; but I do not believe that any performer derived fo great an emolument from the ftage, unless he were alfo a proprietor. The fpeaker feems to wish for excellence that was never yet attained, (to be able to act every part that was ever written,) that he might gain an emolument fuperior to any then acquired by the most popular and fuccef-ful actor: "I would I were a player, and could act Of all that paffeth betwixt youth and age; It appears from a deed executed by Thomas Killigrew and others, that in the year 1666, the whole profit arifing from acting plays, mafques, &c. at the king's theatre, was divided into twelve fhares and three quarters, of which Mr. Killigrew, the manager, had two fhares and three quarters; and if we may truft to the statement in another very "That I might have five fhares in every play, The actors were treated with lefs refpect than at prefent, being fometimes interrupted during their performance, on account of fuppofed perfonalities; for the fame author adds "And yet I would not; for then do I feare, "And in fome paffion or ftrange agonie "Disturb both mee and all the companie." On fome occafions application was made by individuals to the Mafter of the Revels, to reftrain this licentioufnefs of the stage; as appears from the following note: Octob. 1633. Exception was taken by Mr. Sewfter to the fecond part of The Citty Shuffler, which gave me occafion to stay the play, till the company of Salisbury Court] had him fatisfaction; which was done the next day, and under his hande he did certifye mee that he was fatisfyed." MS. Herbert. 7 In an indenture tripartite, dated December 31, 1666, (which I have feen) between Thomas Killigrew and Henry Killigrew, his fon and heir, of the first part, Thomas Porter, Efq. of the fecond part, and Sir John Sayer and Dame Catharine Sayer, his wife, of the third part, it is recited, (inter alia,) that the profits arifing by acting of plays, mafques, &c. then performed by the company of actors called the king and queen's players, were by agreement amongst themfelves and Thomas Killigrew, divided into twelve shares and three quarters, and that Thomas Killigrew was to have two full fhares and three quarters. And by agreement between Henry and Thomas, Henry was to have four pounds per week, out of the two fhares of Thomas, except fuch weeks when the players did not act. In 1682, when the two companies united, the profits of acting, we are told by Colley Cibber, were divided into twenty shares, ten of which went to the proprietors or patentees, and the other moiety to the actors, in different divifions proportioned to their merit. curious paper, inferted below, (which however was probably exaggerated,) each fhare produced, at the lowest calculation, about 250l. per ann. net; and the total clear profits confequently were about 31871. 10s. od. Thefe fhares were then diftributed among the proprietors of the theatre, who at that time were not actors, the performers, and the dramatick poets, who were retained in the fervice of the theatre, and received a part of the annual produce as a compenfation for the pieces which they produced." 8 Wright fays in his Hiftoria Hiftrionica that he had been affured by an old actor, that "for several years next after the Restoration every whole fharer in Mr. Hart's company, [that is, the King's fervants,] got 1000l. per ann. But his informer was undoubtedly mistaken, as is proved by the petition or memorial printed below, (fee n. 9.) and by Sir Henry Herbert's ftatement of Thomas Killigrew's profits. If every whole fharer had got 1000l. per ann. then the annual receipts must have been near 13000l. In 1743, after Mr. Garrick had appeared, the theatre of Drury-lane did not receive more than 15000l. per ann. 9 Gildon in his Laws of Poetry, 8vo. 1721, obferves, that " after the Reitoration, when the two houfes ftruggled for the favour of the town, the taking poets were fecured to either house by a fort of retaining fee, which feldom or never amounted to more than forty fhillings a week, nor was that of any long continuance." He appears to have under-rated their profits; but the fact to which he alludes is inconteftably proved by the following paper, which remained long in the hands of the Killigrew family, and is now in the poffeffion of Mr. Reed of Staple-Inn, by whom it was obligingly. communicated to me fome years ago. The fuperfcription is loft, but it was probably addreffed to the Lord Chamberlain, or the King, about the year 1678: "Whereas upon Mr. Dryden's binding himfelf to write three playes a yeere, hee the faid Mr. Dryden was admitted and continued as a fharer in the king's playhoufe for diverfe years, and received for his hare and a quarter three or four hundred pounds, communibus annis; but though he received the moneys, we received not the playes, not one in a yeare. After which, the house being burnt, the company in building another, contracted great debts, |