The Otago Witness WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6. 1909.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Volume 06, Issue 2899, 6 October 1909, Page 51

The Otago Witness WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6. 1909.)

THE WEEK.

" Nunqaam alin-d natura, aliud s*»ientia diiifc."— JUYEXAL. " Good nature and good sense must erer join. '— POPE. Piobably gi eater interest centres around the reassembling '£ Parlia- < The Premier ment to-morrow than has and Parliament, been the case for a considerable period in the past. For the Government will be faced not only by a vigilant and numerically increased Opposition, but also by a number of ex- *

ceedingly vexed questions which will 'tax" all the* Premier's acumen and ability satisfactorily to solve. First and foremost is the condition of the National Exchequer, for despite a!l that has been done in the way cf retrenchment — and the dissatisfaction caused by this retrenchmen.' is another factor to be faced in the political situation — there is every reason "to anticipate that the Government will have to introduce fresh taxation Indeed, the underlying moral of most of Dr Findlay's platfonr efforts has been the prospect of additional burdens in the shape of taxation proposals being laid upon the back of the taxpayer Seeing that the loar raised by the Premier . when in London — upon terms yet to be diselosed^mus 1 largely be devoted to meeting engagements already entered upon, and that the Na.val and National Defence Schemes are suTe tc involve additional financial expenditure, the- Government's task is by no means an easy one. It may be anticipated that the question of ways and means will occupy a considerable portion of the time of th# Members of Parliament, and that the Oppositiop will pour m a harassing fire of questions and criticisms in regard to the extravagances of the past. Nor can the Naval and Defence programmes be adopted without a good deal of carfeful consideration. Until such time as Sir Joseph Ward" places his complete proposals before the country it would be invidious to attempt a detailed criticism, but at least this much can be said, that in deciding t< separate New Zealand entirely, from Australia in regard to naval defence, and thus .render the Dominion an adjunct to the China station, the Premier has, upon his own responsibility, taken a stand which many will consider "as open to question. Another difficult matter upon which the Government has to put itself right with its supporters is ip regard to .its land policy. It is an anomaly that a party which, in deference to the Socialistic .tendencies of a section of its supporters, has practically pledged itself to the leasehold tenure should, as at Rangitikei, to its bo^om a candidate who is an out-and-out free-holder. Thus it is not au all improbable that the Opposition may force the hands of the Government in this matter, and compel the Premier to state explicitly what his land policy actually is. In a Parliament where the agricultural industry is well represented, the announced reorganisation of the Agricultural Department is likely to be carefully debated, when no- doubt the Hon. T Mackenzie, hitherto the champion of decentralisation, will have an opportunity of convincing Parliament and the country that his proposals are not intended to centralise everything in Wellington. All things considered, , Parliament has plenty to occupy itself with for the few weeks which intervene between now and Christmas, and if our legislators manage to ge' home foi the holidays with their work concluded and without the prospect of an adjourned session early in die new year, they may deem, themselves exceptionally favoured individuals.

It is not always easy to understand th« principle of selection which Shakespeare's guides those responsible in Income. London for the daily collation of cable new 6 provided for the delectatior of newspaper readers in the Dominion. Frequently it- happens that items of intelligence of con.=iderabk. importance are not known in New Zea land until after the arrival of the English mail ; whilst, on the other hand, the English files may be hunted in vain for sundry small matters which occasionally obtain undue prominence in the cable columns of the New Zealand newspapers. This we-ek. for instance, we are informed b> cable that Dr Charles W Wallace has : discovered from records in a lawsuit the fact that Shakespeare, as one of Hemynge's co-partnera in the Globe .and Blackfnars Theatres, drew profits amounting to about £609 per annum, Ii i» when we compare this cable with the facts 3et down by Sidney Lee in his " Life of Shakespeare ' concerning the great drama list's sources of income at this precis* period of his career that the qu-estio« arises as to whether the information wai worth the expense of cabling. Sidney Le« writes: — "In 1635 the heirs of the actoi Richard Burbage were engaged in litigation respecting their proprietary right.6 in the two playhouses, the Globe and Black- \ friars Theatres. The documents relating to this litigation wpply authentic, al- ■ though not very detailed information of Shakespeare's interest in theatrical property. Richard Burbage, with his brother Cuthbert, erected at their sole cost the Globe Theatre, in the winter of 1598-9, and the BJackfriars Theatre, which their father was building at the time of his death, in 1597, was also their property After completing the Globe, they leased out for 21 years shares in the receipts of the theatre to those deserving men— Shakespeare, Hemings, Condell, Phillips, and others. All the shareholders named were, like Burbage, active members % of Shakespeare's company of players Th* shares, which numbered 16 in all, carried with them the obligation of providing foi the expenses ot the playhouse, and vrew doubtless in the first instance freely be- "7 etowed. Hamlet claims in the play scene (111, ii, 293) that success of his improvised tragedy deserved to ' Get him a fellowship in a cry of players' — a proof that a successful dramatist might reasonably, expect such a reward for a conspicuous effort. In Hamlet, moreover, both a.6hara . and a-half share of ' a fellowship in a cry of .players' are described as assets of enviable value (111, ii, 294-6). How many, shares originally fell to Shakespeare ther« is no means of determining. Records of later subdivieiops suggest that they did not exceed two. The Globe was an exceptionally large and popular playhouse. I£ would accommodate some 2000 spectators, whose places cost them sums varying between twopence and half a crown. The receipts were, therefore, considerable, barmy less ihaa £&> dafljr, or some £8800

V year. Accdrding to the documents of 1635, an actor sharer at the Globs received above £200 a year on each share, 'besides his actor's salary of £180. Thus Shakespeare drew from the Globe Theatre, «t the lowest estimate, more than £600 a year in all. His interest in the Blackfriars was comparatively unimportant, and is less easy to estimate. The often-quoted documents on which Collier depended to prove him a substantial shareholder in that playhouse have long been proved to be forgeries. The pleas in the lawsuit of 1635 show that the Burbages, the owners, leased the Blackfriars Theatre, after its establishment in 1597, for a lon| term of years to the master of the Children of the Chapel, but bought out the lessee at the end of 1609, and then ' placed ' in it men players, which were Hemings, Shakespeare, Condell, etc. To these and other actors they allotted shares in the receipts ; the shares numbering eight in all. The profits were far smaller than at the Globe, and if Shakespeare held one share — certainty on the point is impossible — it added not more than £100 a year to his income, and that not until 1610. His remuneration as dramatist between 1599 and 1611 was also by no means contemptible.- Thus Shakespeare, in the latter period of his life, was earning above £600 a year in money of the period. There is nothing inherently 'inprobable in the statement of John Ward, the seventeenth-century vicar of Stratford, that in his last years he spent at the rate of a thousand a year, as I have heard, though we may reasonably make allowance for exaggeration in the round figures."

( All that Dr Wallace, therefore, has succeeded in doings is apShakesprare parently to corroborate the ac Actor. conclusions previously arrived at by Mr Sidney Lee. But it also directs attention to the oftentimes neglected fact tliat Shakespeare wa-s as much an actor as an author. Dr Furnivall, in his " Biography of Shakespeare" (recently reissued by Cassell's in a cheap Teprint as introductory volume to their ~" Century Shakespeare"), writes: — " Tb» x j playhouse with which tradition connects , Shakespeare was called ' The Theatre,' ' and was built by a player and joiner, James Burbage, vn 1577. in the fields out- j side the city walls, on the west of Bishop- | gate street, near the site of the present Standard Theatre, in Shoreditch. In 1598 , it was polled down, and in 1599 rebuilt as i ' The Globe,' on Bankside Southwalk. j Whether employed at ' The Theatre ' or ' The Curtaine,' close by, or any of the 'other suche lyke places besides,' of which •Northbrooke speaks in 1577-8, or ' the j theaters,' of which Harriscn said in 1573, | ' It is an evident token of a wicked time I when plaiers were so riche that they can i build suchft houses.' jt. is clear from Robert Greene's posthumous 'Groatsworth of Wit/ I in 1592. that Shak&speare was then known ! and well known as both actor and author, though we have no direct evidence of his j being a member of Burbage's or the Lord j Chamberlain's Company till Christmas 1593. ... On March "24, 1602-3, Queen I Elizabeth died. . . . Shakespeare's j Company no doubt expected favours from I James I, through one of their members, ■ Laurence Fletcher, who had acted before . James in Scotland with the English actois. ; who were there between October 1599 and ' December 1601, and who wa« granted the I freedom of the city of Abeidcen on Octo- ( beir, 1601. as ' comedian to his Majesty.' \ Accordingly. 10 days after James had j reached London, he. by warrant dated May ' 17, 1603. licensed Fletcher's {or Shakes- < peare's) Company — ' These our servants, ' Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillippes, John He*nmings, Henrie Condell, William ( Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowlye, and i the rest of their associates, freely to use j and exercise the arte and faculty of play- J ing comedies, tragedies, histories, enter- I ludes, moralls, pastoralls, stage plaies, and j ■such other like. ... as well for , the recreation of our loving subjects, I as for our solace and pleasure when we bhall think good t«v s>?e them, during our pleasure ; and the said comedies, tragedies. histories. enterludes, morally, pastoralls, stage plaies. and such like, to show and exercise publiquely to their best commoditie, when the infection of the plague shall decrease, as well within j their now usual house, called The Globe, < our country of Surrey, as a.lso j within anie towne halls, or mout halls, j or ottier convenient places withip the liberties and freedom of any other cities. universitie town, or borough whatsoever, within our said realm-es and dominions.' Thus it was that Shakespeare's Company | was changed from ' The Lord Chamber- ■ lain's Servants ' U. ' The King'n Player*,' and Dr Furnivall adds : — ' T see no reason , to doubt that Shakespeare remained an actor as long as he remained in London.' "