66 Lewen" of the register of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, quoted by Malone, was a member of some other family. By the rate-books of St. Paul, Covent Garden, it appears that in 1660 John Lowen was living in Chandos Street: in 1661 "gone" is written against his name. In 1662 we find him in Bedford Street, and he was still there in 1667, the word shop" being put opposite to his name, to indicate that he was a shopkeeper. This was doubtless the "Mr. John Lowen" who was buried at St. Paul's in the spring of 1669, but we are unable to prove that he was identical with the old player in Shakespeare: we should hardly have questioned it, but for the extreme age he must have reached, if it were he. Page 206, line 26. We may add the following to this note: it is from "The New Cambridge Jester," printed in 1697; but it may be doubted whether it first appeared there : : "Nathaniel Field, the player, being in company with a certain nobleman who was distantly related to him, the latter asked the reason why they spelt their names differently, the nobleman's family spelling it Feild, and the player spelling it Field? I cannot tell,' answered the player; 'except it be that my branch of the family were the first that knew to spell.'" This anecdote serves to show how long the memory of Field survived; but the same story has since been told of others. Page 211, line 1. This portrait was bequeathed to Dulwich College by William Cartwright. He left behind him, as we have stated, a catalogue of his pictures, which contains the following description of the portrait of Field : "Master Field's picture in his shirt, on a board; in a black frame filleted with gold. An actour." The shirt is white, and it is embroidered with black lace. years. For "three or four years," read two or three Page 218, line 31. In the State Paper Office (Domestic Papers, 1616, No. 334) is the copy of an epistle headed "Feild the player, letter to Mr. Sutton, preacher, att St. Mary Overs: 1616," which in fact is a brief defence of the stage against Mr. Sutton, who in his sermons had inveighed against them. After a pious and scriptural introduction, Field thus proceeds: "If you merveyle, sir, why I beginne with a pro testation so zelous and sacred, or why I salute you in a phrase so confused and wrapped, I beseech you to understand that you have bene of late pleased (and that many tymes) from the holy hill of Sion, the pulpitt, a place sanctified and dedicated for the winning, not discouraging of soules, to send forth many those bitter breathings, those uncharitable and unlimited curses of condemnations against that poore calling it hath pleased the Lord to place me in:" and then he goes on to complain, that Mr. Sutton had not hesitated "particularly to point att me and some other of my quallity, and directly in our faces, in the publique assemblie, to pronounce us dampned." Field afterwards asserts that the preacher had endeavoured "to hinder the Sacrament, and banish me from mine own parishe church;" and goes on to maintain that "in God's whole volume (which I have studied as my best parte) I find not any trade of lief, except conjurers, sorcerers, and witches (ipso facto) dampned." He refers to the example of James I., whom he calls "our Joshua," as proof that players are to be tolerated; but he enters into no particulars, and deals only in general arguments in defence of plays and players. The paper has no signature. Page 247, line 13. We may doubt whether "The Honest Man's Fortune" were originally acted by the King's players, as here, and else⚫ where, supposed. The names at the foot of the dramatis personæ, in the folio of 1647, do not seem to be those of the association to which Shakespeare had belonged. If so, it would make a difference in the time when Field, Taylor, and Ecclestone, joined or rejoined the company of his Majesty's servants. We have written throughout upon the foundation that "The Honest Man's Fortune" was first produced by the King's players, and that the actors, named in the folio of 1647, were members of that association in 1613; but it may be an error. If it be an error, Field did not become a member of the company called the King's players until about three years before the death of Burbadge; nor Taylor, for the second time, until just after that event. MEMOIRS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACTORS IN THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. RICHARD BURBADGE. We cannot better illustrate the carelessness with which matters relating to the personal history of the principal actors in Shakespeare's Plays have been collected by their only biographers, Malone and Chalmers, than by referring to the fact that they both repeatedly consulted the registers of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, and yet failed to note the baptism of one of the children of Richard Burbadge, and the burial of another. This omission is the more extraordinary on the part of Chalmers, because he plumes himself highly on correcting errors committed by Malone.' The child, whose birth is unrecorded by either, is William Burbadge, born on the 6th November, 1616, about six months after the death of Shakespeare; and it is extremely interesting, since we need entertain little doubt that the boy was named William in memory of our great dramatist, by acting in whose productions Richard Burbadge had attained so lofty a professional reputation, and with whom, as far as we know, he kept up his intimacy to the last. The child whose death escaped the observation of Malone and Chalmers was Sarah, the pos |