theatre. No one doubts that. The holding of horses is scouted by
many, and perhaps with justice, as being unlikely and certainly
unproved; but whatever the nature of his employment was at the
theatre, there is hardly room for the belief that it could have
been other than continuous, for his progress there was so rapid.
Ere long he had been taken into the company as an actor, and was
soon spoken of as a 'Johannes Factotum.' His rapid accumulation of
wealth speaks volumes for the constancy and activity of his
services. One fails to see when there could be a break in the
current of his life at this period of it, giving room or
opportunity for legal or indeed any other employment. 'In 1589,'
says Knight, 'we have undeniable evidence that he had not only a
casual engagement, was not only a salaried servant, as many players
were, but was a shareholder in the company of the Queen's players
with other shareholders below him on the list.' This (1589) would
be within two years after his arrival in London, which is placed by
White and Halliwell-Phillipps about the year 1587. The difficulty
in supposing that, starting with a state of ignorance in 1587, when
he is supposed to have come to London, he was induced to enter upon
a course of most extended study and mental culture, is almost
insuperable. Still it was physically possible, provided always
that he could have had access to the needful books. But this legal
training seems to me to stand on a different footing. It is not
only unaccountable and incredible, but it is actually negatived by
the known facts of his career." Lord Penzance then refers to the
fact that "by 1592 (according to the best authority, Mr. Grant
White) several of the plays had been written. The Comedy of Errors
in 1589, Love's Labour's Lost in 1589, Two Gentlemen of Verona in
1589 or 1590, and so forth, and then asks, "with this catalogue of
dramatic work on hand . . . was it possible that he could have