This natural inclination, fed by the frequent theatrical performances at Stratford, would go far, if not suffice of itself to account for the Poet’s subsequent course of life.  Before 1586, no doubt, he was well acquainted with some of the players, with whom we shall hereafter find him associated.  In their exhibitions, rude as these were, he could not but have been a greedy spectator and an apt scholar.  Thomas Greene, a fellow-townsman of his, was already one of their number.  All this might not indeed be enough to draw him away from Stratford; but when other reasons came, if others there were, for leaving, these circumstances would hold out to him an easy and natural access and invitation to the stage.  Nor is there any extravagance in supposing that, by 1586, he may have taken some part as actor or writer, perhaps both, in the performances of the company which he afterwards joined.

The deer-stealing matter as given by Rowe is as follows:  That Shakespeare fell into the company of some wild fellows who were in the habit of stealing deer, and who drew him into robbing a park owned by Sir Thomas Lucy, of Charlecote, near Stratford.  That, being prosecuted for this, he lampooned Sir Thomas in some bitter verses; which made the Knight so sharp after him, that he had to steal himself off and take shelter in London.

Several have attempted to refute this story; but the main substance of it stands approved by too much strength of credible tradition to be easily overthrown.  And it is certain from public records that the Lucys had great power at Stratford, and were not seldom engaged in disputes with the corporation.  Mr. Halliwell met with an old record entitled “the names of them that made the riot upon Master Thomas Lucy, Esquire.”  Thirty-five inhabitants of Stratford, chiefly tradespeople, are named in the list, but no Shakespeares among them.

Knight, over-zealous in the Poet’s behalf, will not allow any thing to be true that infers the least moral blemish in his life:  he therefore utterly discredits the story in question, and hunts it down with arguments more ingenious than sound.  In writing biography, special-pleading is not good; and I would fain avoid trying to make the Poet out any better than he was.  Little as we know about him, it is evident enough that he had his frailties, and ran into divers faults, both as a poet and as a man.  And when we hear him confessing, as in a passage already quoted, “Most true it is, that I have looked on truth askance and strangely”; we may be sure he was but too conscious of things that needed to be forgiven; and that he was as far as any one from wishing his faults to pass for virtues.  Deer-stealing, however, was then a kind of fashionable sport, and whatever might be its legal character, it was not morally regarded as involving any criminality or disgrace.  So that the whole thing may be justly treated as a mere youthful frolic, wherein there might indeed be some indiscretion, and a deal of vexation to the person robbed, but no stain on the party engaged in it.