of what integral sum is not mentioned. The person alluded to, (if any person was alluded to, which is not certain,) must, I think, have been a proprietor, as well as a principal actor. Our poet in his Hamlet speaks of a whole share, as no contemptible emolument; and from the same play we learn that some of the performers had only half a share. Others probably had still less.

7 "Would not this, sir, and a forest of feathers, (if the rest of my fortunes turn Turk with me,) with two Provencial roses on my razed shoes, get me a fellowship in a cry of players, sir?" "Hor. Half a share.

"Ham. A whole share, I." Hamlet, Act III. sc. ii.

In a poem entitled I would and I would not, by B. N. 1614, the writer makes a player utter a wish to possess five shares in every play; but I do not believe that any performer derived so great an emolument from the stage, unless he were also a proprietor. The speaker seems 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 superior to any then acquired by the most popular and successful actor:

"I would I were a player, and could act "As many partes as came upon a stage, "And in my braine could make a full compact "Of all that passeth betwixt youth and age; "That I might have five shares in every play, "An let them laugh that bear the bell away." The actors were treated with less respect than at present, being sometimes interrupted during their performance, on account of supposed personalities; for the same author adds

"And yet I would not; for then do I feare,

"If I should gall some goose-cap with my speech, "That he would freat, and fume, and chafe, and swear, "As if some flea had bit him by the breech; "And in some passion or strange agonie "Disturb both mee and all the companie."

On some occasions application was made by individuals to the Master of the Revels, to restrain this licentiousness of the stage; as appears from the following note:

"Octob. 1633. Exception was taken by Mr. Sewster to the second part of The Citty Shuffler, which gave me occasion to stay the play, till the company [of Salisbury Court] had given

8

It appears from a deed executed by Thomas Killigrew and others, that in the year 1666, the whole profit arising from acting plays, masques, &c. at the king's theatre, was divided into twelve shares and three quarters, of which Mr. Killigrew, the manager, had two shares and three quarters; and if we may trust to the statement in another very curious paper, inserted below, (which however was probably exaggerated,) each share produced, at the lowest calculation, about 2501." per ann. net; and

him satisfaction; which was done the next day, and under his hande he did certifye mee that he was satisfyed." MS. Herbert.

In an indenture tripartite, dated December 31, 1666 (which I have seen) between Thomas Killigrew and Henry Killigrew, his son and heir, of the first part, Thomas Porter, Esq. of the second part, and Sir John Sayer and Dame Catharine Sayer, his wife, of the third part, it is recited, (inter alia,) that the profits arising by acting of plays, masques, &c. then perform. ed by the company of actors called the king and queen's players, were by agreement amongst themselves and Thomas Killigrew, divided into twelve shares and three quarters, and that Thomas Killigrew was to have two full shares and three quarters. And by agreement between Henry and Thomas, Henry was to have four pounds per week, out of the two shares of Thomas, except such 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 divisions proportioned to their merit.

9 Wright says in his Historia Histrionica that he had been assured by an old actor, that " for several years next after the Restoration every whole sharer in Mr. Hart's company, [that is, the King's servants,] got 1000l. per ann." But his informer was undoubtedly mistaken, as is proved by the petition or memorial printed below, (see n. 1,) and by Sir Henry Herbert's statement of Thomas Killigrew's profits. If every whole sharer had got 1000l. per ann. then the annual receipts must have been near 13,000l. In 1743, after Mr. Garrick had appeared, the theatre of Drury Lane did not receive more than 15,000l. per ann.

the total clear profits consequently were about 31871. 10s. Od.

These shares were then distributed among the proprietors of the theatre, who at that time were not actors, the performers, and the dramatick poets, who were retained in the service of the theatre, and received a part of the annual produce as a compensation for the pieces which they produced.1

! Gildon in his Laws of Poetry, 8vo. 1721, observes, that "after the Restoration, when the two houses struggled for the favour of the town, the taking poets were secured to either house by a sort of retaining fee, which seldom or never amounted to more than forty shillings 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 incontestably proved by the following paper, which remained long in the hands of the Killigrew family, and is now in the possession of Mr. Reed of Staple Inn, by whom it was obligingly communicated to me some years ago. The superscription is lost, but it was probably addressed to the Lord Chamberlain, or the King, about the year 1678:

"Whereas upon Mr. Dryden's binding himself to write three playes a yeere, hee the said Mr. Dryden was admitted and continued as a sharer in the king's playhouse for diverse years, and received for his share 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, so that shares fell much short of what they were formerly. Thereupon Mr. Dryden complaining to the company of his want of proffit, the company was so kind to him that they not only did not presse him for the playes which he so engaged to write for them, and for which he was paid beforehand, but they did also at his earnest request give him a third day for his last new play called All for Love; and at the receipt of the money of the said third day, he acknowledged it as a guift, and a particular kindnesse of the company. Yet notwithstanding this kind proceeding, Mr. Dryden has now, jointly with Mr. Lee, (who was in pension with us to the last day of our playing, and shall continue,) written a play called Oedipus, and given it to the Duke's company, contrary to his said agreement, his promise, and all gratitude, to the great prejudice and almost undoing of

In a paper delivered by Sir Henry Herbert to Lord Clarendon and the Lord Chamberlain, July 11, 1662, which will be found in a subsequent page, he states the emolument which Mr. Thomas Killigrew then derived (from his two shares and three quarters,) at 191. 6s. Od. per week; according to which statement each share in the king's company produced but two hundred and ten pounds ten shillings a year. In Sir William D'Avenant's company, from the time their new theatre, was opened in Portugal Row, near Lincoln's Inn Fields, (April 1662,) the total receipt (after deducting the nightly

the company, they being the only poets remaining to us. Mr. Crowne, being under the like agreement with the duke's house, writt a play called The Destruction of Jerusalem, and being forced by their refusall of it, to bring it to us, the said company compelled us, after the studying of it, and a vast expence in scenes and cloaths, to buy off their clayme, by paying all the pension he had received from them, amounting to one hundred and twelve pounds paid by the king's company, besides near forty pounds he the said Mr. Crowne paid out of his owne pocket.

"These things considered, if notwithstanding Mr. Dryden's said agreement, promise, and moneys freely giving him for his said last new play, and the many titles we have to his writings, this play be judged away from us, we must submit.

(Signed)

Charles Killigrew.

Charles Hart.

Rich. Burt.
Cardell Goodman.
Mic. Mohun."

It has been thought very extraordinary that Dryden should enter into a contract to produce three new plays every year; and undoubtedly that any poet should formally stipulate that his genius should be thus productive, is extraordinary. But the exertion itself was in the last age not uncommon. In ten years, from the death of Beaumont in 1615 to the year 1625, I have good reason to believe that Fletcher produced near thirty plays. Massinger between 1628 and 1638 brought out nearly the same number; and Shirley in fifteen years furnished various theatres with forty plays. Thomas Heywood was still more prolifick.

charges of "men hirelings and other customary expences,") was divided into fifteen shares, of which it was agreed by articles previously entered into, that ten should belong to D'Avenant; viz, two "towards the house-rent, buildings, scaffolding, and making of frames for scenes; one for a provision of habits, properties, and scenes, for a supplement of the said theatre; and seven to maintain all the women that are to perform or represent women's parts, in tragedies, comedies, &c. and in consideration of erecting and establishing his actors to be a company, and his pains and expences for that purpose for many years." The other five shares were divided in various proportions among the rest of the troop.

In the paper above referred to it is stated by Sir Henry Herbert, that D'Avenant "drew from these ten shares two hundred pounds a week;" and if that statement was correct, each share in his playhouse then produced annually six hundred pounds, supposing the acting season to have then lasted for thirty weeks.

Such were the emoluments of the theatre soon after the Restoration; which I have stated here, from authentick documents, because they may assist us in our conjectures concerning the profits derived from stage-exhibitions at a more remote and darker period.

From the prices of admission into our ancient theatres in the time of Shakspeare, which have been already noticed, I formerly conjectured that about twenty pounds was a considerable receipt at the Blackfriars and Globe theatre, on any one day; and my conjecture is now confirmed by indisputable

These articles will be found in a subsequent page.