deeply fined,' speaking in the disjunctive, whereas he suffered beyond both these inflictions. Having been tried in the Star Chamber, he was twice set in the pillory, lost parts of both ears*, was fined 50007., * The subsequent quotations on this subject fix the dates when Prynne was set in the pillory: they are from the Diary of Sir Humphrey Mildmay, before cited. 'May 7, 1634. Att the Hall, where I sawe Prynne in the pillory, and lost a piece of an eare. 'May 10. This fatall morning Prynne loste the other parte of an eare in Cheap[side].' I have already had occasion, and shall have occasion again, to quote from this valuable MS., which, at one end of the volume, contains a journal of events, and at the other an account of the expenses of the writer in London and elsewhere. He does not seem to have been on very good terms with his wife, to have led a very gay life, and, among other things, to have given her just cause of complaint on the ground of infidelity. He enters everything without reserve; and the following are specimens of his daily expenses, not including the items of plays which he saw at the different theatres, because they are separately adverted to in the text: 21 Jan. 1631. To the Wanton Nurse at M. Langhornes £. s. d. 0 1 0 0 1 0 14 July, 1632. To a pretty wenche at Paule's Wharfe . 01 0 To Thomas of the Stall of Cozeninge '10 Nov. 27 Nov. '12 April, 1633. To Mr. John Percy for Rhemishe Tes To Ducke Lane for popishe bookes Expences at a Cherry Garden To Hunnis, fiddler at Brentwood To Nath' for making of me merry, and 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 expelled Lincoln's Inn, disbarred, deprived of his degree in the University of Oxford, and ordered to be imprisoned for life. It is to be observed, that this sentence was not executed until May, 1634, long after the publication of Histriomastix, and the denunciation of it by Laud, so that the King and his advisers had not even the excuse of temporary excitement for its infliction. In the interval between the judgment and its enforcement, it was believed by many that the punishment would be remitted*. £. s. d. 0 1 0' 19 March, 1633. To a bookseller for the Converted Jew 0 5 0 '14 July, 1634. To a Taverne with a Bona Two of the items in this MS. are particularly curious, in connexion with the family and name of Shakespeare. They run thus :— 31 May, 1633. To Mr. Shakespere his man Jo, for one There are many notes in the margin of this account book, and opposite the first of these entries are placed these remarkable words, No player now;' as if the Shakespere here mentioned had once been a player, or at least had had some connexion with players. What relation, if any, this Shakespere might be to William Shakespeare, my researches have not enabled me to ascertain. I have been able to learn, however, that he bore the Christian name of Shakespeare's father, John, and that he was dead in 1637. By a Privy Seal, dated 16th of December, 13 Car. I., orders were given to the Lord Treasurer to pay to Mary Shakespere, 'widow and executrix of John Shakespere, our late Bittmaker deceased,' the sum of 16927. 11s. due to her late husband. He must have been a man of considerable substance to allow so large a debt to be incurred. The Privy Seal is in the Chapter House, Westminster. *The following passage upon this subject is quoted from the MS. journal of Sir Symonds d'Ewes, under date of 8th of May, 1634:— Some quotations, applicable to the year 1632, made by Malone from the Register of Sir H. Herbert, must be noticed before we proceed further with the events of 1633: one of them relates to the licensing of Ben Jonson's Magnetic Lady, or Humours reconciled, (the Master of the Revels inverts the title, making the second the first,) on the 12th October, 1632, when Sir H. Herbert received 2. as his fee. It would seem, from a passage in a letter by James Howell, dated 27th Jan. 1629, (quoted by Gifford *) that this play was already written and performed. It is clear, however, on the 'I departed from Stow-hall towards London, and the next day in 'the afternoon came safe thither. As soon as I lighted I heard a par'ticular news which much ensadded my heart, touching William Prynne, Esq. that had been an Utter Barrister of Lincolns Inn and a " graduate in the University of Oxford, who had lost one ear already in 'the pillory, or a part of it, and was to lose a part of the other to-morrow. 'He was a most learned and religious gentleman, had written many ' acute, solid and elaborate treatises, not only against the blasphemous 'Anabaptists, in the defence of God's grace and providence, but ' against the vices of the clergy, and the abuses of the times. He had 'been censured in the Star-chamber a few months before for some passages in a book he wrote against stage-plays, called Histriomastix, as if he had in them let slip some words tending to the Queen's dishonour, because he spoke against the unlawfulness of men wearing 'women's apparel, and women men's. Notwithstanding this censure, 'which most men were frighted at, to see that neither his academical " nor barrister's gown could free him from the infamous loss of his ears, 6 yet all good men generally conceived it would have been remitted; ' and many reported it was, 'till the sad and fatal execution of it this 'midsummer terme. I went to visit him a while after in the Fleet and 'to comfort him, and found in him the rare effects of an upright heart, ' and a good conscience, by his serenitie of spirit and cheerful patience.' * Ben Jonson's Works, vi. 2. authority of Sir Henry Herbert, that Howell's letter is ante-dated, and the time of the completion of the Magnetic Lady is fixed by the following sentence in a letter from John Pory to Sir Thomas Puckering, dated Sept. 20, 1632- Ben Jonson (who I thought had been dead) hath written a play against next ' term called the Magnetick Lady.' It was licensed to the King's players, and Sir H. Herbert notices that he received his fee from Knight, who was the prompter at the Blackfriars theatre. Another quotation from the same authority, dated 18th Nov. 1632, refers to a comedy called The Ball, which Sir Henry Herbert attributes to James Shirley, but which was in fact the joint production of Shirley and Chapman: it had been acted by the Queen's players under Beeston, at the Cockpit in Drury-lane, prior to the date of the entry of the Master of the Revels *, who found reason to complain of the manner in which lords and others of the Court' were personated in it, under the apprehension that he might be called to account for the offence of the poet t. *The date of the licence by Sir Henry Herbert seems to have been 16th Nov. 1632; so that the information regarding objectionable passages soon reached him. The play was printed in 1639, probably without the objectionable passages, as nothing of the kind is to be traced in it. The following is the precise form of the entry by Sir H. Herbert. ⚫ 18 Nov. 1632. In the play of the Ball, written by Shirley, and 'acted by the Queen's players, there were divers personated so natur، ally, both of lords and others of the Court, that I took it ill and would 1633. In the spring of 1633 the King made a progress into Scotland, taking his departure from A. D. London on the 13th May. Whether any players attended him, as they had done his father, for his entertainment on the journey, we are without positive information *. When he arrived in the capital of Scotland in June, he found his Gentlemen of the Chapel there, whither they had proceeded by sea. A Privy Seal was issued on 31st April, placing in the hands of Stephen Boughton, Subdean of the Chapel,' 300l. to defray the charges of the Gentlemen of the Chapel attending the King into Scotland. That they went by sea appears from another document of the same kind, dated on the 6th May, for providing meals for 26 gentlemen of the chapel' during their voyage. The King returned to Greenwich towards the close of July. T ' have forbidden the play, but that Biston promised many things, which 'I found fault withall, should be left out, and that he would not suffer it to be done by the poet any more, who deserves to be punished: and the first that offends in this kind, of poets or players, shall be 6 sure of public punishment.' Here the offence seems to have been wholly that of the poet, and not of the actors, by their dresses or manners imitating people of consequence. * The affirmative is rendered very probable by the following entry in the MS. Register of the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, still preserved in the Lord Chamberlain's office. '25 Augt. 1634. A Council Warrant for 1007. for the Princes 'Players for their attendance abroad, during the progress of the Court.' The King made no progress in 1634, and the money paid in August of that year had probably become due in the year preceding, when the King went to Scotland, called ' abroad' in the warrant, |