WILLIAM OSTLER.

He was one of "the Children of the Queen's Chapel" in 1601, when he played with Field, Pavy, Underwood, and others in Ben Jonson's "Poetaster:" as he had no part in the same dramatist's "Cynthia's Revels," in 1600, represented by the same juvenile company, we may infer, perhaps, that in 1601 he had been recently taken into the association.

1

Anterior to April, 1604, he seems to have been drafted into his Majesty's players, possibly as a young man to sustain female characters: his name is spelt Hostler in a list of "the King's company" at that date, and no Christian name is given; but doubtless it was the same performer, as there were not two Ostlers on the stage at the same time. He had nothing to do in Ben Jonson's" Sejanus" in 1603; at least, he is not mentioned by the author at the end of the play in the folio of 1616: the earliest date at which his name appears, on the authority of Ben Jonson, as one of "the King's Majesty's servants," is 1610, when Ostler is introduced as a "principal comedian" in "The Alchemist." In the next year he had a part in "Catiline," most probably a male one; but when Malone asserts positively that it was so, he does it without more evidence than is to be derived from Ostler's place in the author's list of the chief actors.

Before this time Ostler must have been an applauded and popular performer, or Davies of Hereford would not have addressed him in his "Scourge of Folly," (printed, as already mentioned, about 1611) as "the Roscius of these times." Davies was, no doubt, acquainted with him, and in all theatrical eulogies, 1 Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, p. 68.

whether of our own or of former times, considerable allowance must be made for the partiality of friendship. The lines by Davies were referred to by Malone, but have not been quoted anywhere, that we recollect, and to us we own that they are not by any means intelligible: however, we subjoin them literally, in the hope that the reader will make more sense out of them than we can:

TO THE ROSCIUS OF THESE TIMES, MR. W. OSTLER.

Ostler, thou took'st a knock thou would'st have giv'n,

Neere sent thee to thy latest home: but, O!
Where was thine action, when thy crown was riv'n,

Sole King of Actors? then wast idle?

Thou hadst it, for thou wouldst bee doing.
Good actors' deeds are oft most dangerous;

But if thou plaist thy dying part as well

No:
Thus

As thy stage parts, thou hast no part in hell.1

Hence we might gather that an assault had been committed upon Ostler, and that he brought an action against his assailant. The "epigram," for such it is called, was perhaps understood at the time, but Davies seems now and then to have prided himself on being obscure.

Ostler was married before 1612, but where and to whom we have not been able to discover.2 He had a son christened at St. Mary's, Aldermanbury, in the spring of 1612, and he named it Beaumont, probably after the dramatic poet, who may have stood godfather to it. The entry in the register is

1 We are indebted to the Rev. Joseph Hunter for this extract from a rare book in his library: the title of it is "The Scourge of Folly. Consisting of Satyricall Epigrams, &c. At London, printed by E. A., for Richard Redmer, sould at his shop at the west gate of Paules."

2 A John Ostler and Margaret Dickinson were married on 15th Feb., 1612, at St. Anne's, Blackfriars, but we have no means of tracing any relationship, beyond the name.

in these terms, and it was not usual there to specify the occupation of the parent :—

Baptized 18 May, 1612. Beaumont, the sonne of William Ostler.1

It is to be remarked that Ostler was an actor in Beaumont and Fletcher's "Captain," "Bonduca," "Valentinian," and no doubt in other plays, though his name be not found at the bottom of the dramatis personæ in the folios. We suspect that he had no more children, and we find no trace of any in the registers of St. Mary, Aldermanbury, or the adjoining parishes.2 The name of Ostler, or Hostler, was known in St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, and St. Botolph's, Bishopgate, but not in any instance with the Christian name of William prefixed. "Margaret, the wife of John Ostler," was buried at St. Leonard's, from Holywell Street, where so many actors resided, in 1622; but she could hardly have been the widow of the John Ostler who was interred at St. Botolph's in 1574.

It is quite certain that Ostler was lost to the stage before 1623, although Malone hastily concluded that he was still an actor in that year-" He acted Antonio in Webster's Duchess of Malfi, in 1623." The evidence referred to proves precisely the contrary: the tragedy was printed in 1623, as it had been revived the year before, having been originally produced about 1616. To the printed copy is prefixed a very

1 This memorandum escaped Malone and Chalmers, when making their searches respecting the families of Heminge and Condell.

2 The Joan Osteler who was buried at St. Botolph on 14 July, 1603, was a grown woman, as her age is inserted in the margin of the register. Robert, the son of Vincent Ostler, was baptized on 30 July, 1603. 3 Malone's Shaksp. by Boswell, iii., 213. Chalmers falls precisely into the same error as Malone, whom he copies almost verbally in other respects. Suppl. Apology, p. 170.

This is Malone's own date, and probably the correct one, though not for the reason he assigns. See note on "Timon of Athens," act iii., scene 3. The only certain point at which we can arrive is that "The

unusual list of the original actors in the several parts, and of those who had been substituted and sustained them on the revival

thus in the case of Ostler we read :

Antonio Bologna,

Steward of the house

hold to the Duchess.

}

1. W. Ostler. 2. R. Benfield.

The meaning being, that in the first instance, when the tragedy was brought out about 1616, Ostler was Antonio, but that when it was revived, perhaps in 1622, (Ostler being dead, or having retired from the stage) the character had been assigned to R. Benfield. In our memoir of Condell we have stated, as one of our reasons for thinking that he had withdrawn from the more public duties of the profession in 1623, that he had relinquished the character of the Cardinal, in "The Duchess of Malfi," to R. Robinson. On the same grounds we conclude that Ostler was at this date lost to the stage, either by death or retirement, for afterwards we never hear of him in connexion with the King's players,, or any other company. We have not been able to discover the registration of the death of Ostler in the parishes in which our old actors commonly resided. Perhaps he came from the country, and retired to the country.

"

Duchess of Malfi was originally acted before the death of Burbadge, in March, 1619, because he had the part of Ferdinand in it, which in 1623 was in the hands of Joseph Taylor.

NATHAN FIELD.

It is a new fact in the history of Nathan (or, as it is sometimes written, Nathaniel) Field,' that although a distinguished player, second perhaps only to Burbadge, and a

66

principal actor" in Shakespeare's dramas, he was the son of a puritanical preacher of much popularity, and one of the earliest as well as one of the bitterest enemies of theatrical performances. Malone and Chalmers, by their brief notices, appear to have known nothing of Field until the year 1600, when he sustained a part in "Cynthia's Revels ;"2 but we are able to carry on his history from his birth to his death, and we are also in a condition to show, for the first time, that he was married, and had a family.

He was born in the year 1587, in the parish of St. Giles, without Cripplegate, as the following extract from the register establishes :

Christened: Nathan Fielde, sonne of John Fielde, preacher, 17 October, 1587.

There is, as we have stated, a question, whether his real name were Nathan, as it stands in the register, or Nathaniel; and it is quite certain that his father, on 13th June, 1581,

For the satisfaction of those who may think it of importance to know how names were spelt of old, it may be observed that Field went through the following varieties of orthography-Feld, Felde, Feild, Field, Feilde, Feelde, and Fielde: it is found in nearly all these forms in the registers of St. Giles, Cripplegate.

2 Malone (Shakspeare by Boswell, iii., 213) tells us, that "Cynthia's Revels" was originally performed in 1601, but this is an error: Ben Jonson himself asserts that it was "first acted in the year 1600."