Shall we love him

himself in the Sonnets belie these qualities. less, or esteem him less highly when he divulges to us his very soul in his human weakness? Is he still not beautiful, loving and true, and even more marvellous than we had conceived him, because notwithstanding his human frailties, he shows forth such an imperishable glory? In him we find a brother in weakness, and a master in art,—a superlative genius molded from the common clay. Let him condemn who has not known some gentle soul, beautiful, loving and true, that has worn the galling shackles that Shakespeare bore. Who has not known the greatest intellects and the choicest spirits slave to this self same appetite, which we cannot understand, nor they control? We have seen him, the outcast, with rain upon his 'storm-beaten face,' drinking his potions of 'Siren tears,' in the distraction of the 'madding fever'; tortured in a 'hell of time,' yet confessing that it was beyond his strength 'to shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.' Yet, through all this, drifting into utter darkness, we find in him no unkindness, no ugliness, no falsity. He knew his own sin, if sin it was, and sought not to excuse it, nor to reproach others for the degradation into which he had fallen. Though he had well nigh deified wine as the inspirer of his highest visions, he came to see its evil nature, and as he closed the matchless volume of all literature, he declared it 'as black as hell, as dark as night.' His very last and parting denunciation was, 'For I have sworn thee fair; more perjured I, to swear against the truth so foul a lie.'

Shall we condemn Shakespeare as a drunkard, and call him immoral? Rather shall we not conclude that he was sincere and

honest above all men? Who among us would have laid his frailties bare as he has done? He who feels that he cannot still honor and reverence this immortal intellect-drunkard though he was-does not realize, and will not consider, that in spite of his affliction, his achievements were, among men, the nearest approach to the preternatural. As the Sonnets have been heretofore read, and misunderstood, it has been necessary to concede that Shakespeare's life was given to moral laxity, and to such abjectness as robbed him of his manhood. With the true reading all this disappears, and so far as we now know, or probably shall ever know, his life was spotless, and he himself as gentle, kindly and loveable as our most exacting morals could require. That he was unfortunate appeals to our sympathy, and should not provoke

our condemnation. That Shakespeare was gentle, kind and much beloved he himself believed. In speaking of himself in the 10th Sonnet, he says, 'grant if thou wilt, thou art beloved of many,' and again, 'Be, as thy presence is, gracious and kind.' And in the 70th he says, 'If some suspect of ill (drunkenness) mask'd not thy brow, then thou alone kingdoms of hearts shouldst owe.' The Sonnets throughout show him to have been of the tenderest feelings, even taking upon himself all blame and shame, and exonerating others. In defending himself against criticism he shows how deeply stung he was by them, but if the conclusions that have been drawn are correct, he soon forgot all vindictiveness, and made ample amends.

In considering Shakespeare's weakness, the surrounding in which he lived should be taken into account. His was an age of unlicensed drunkenness, such as the world has probably never seen, either before or since. All classes, both high and low, were given to the greatest excess in the use of alcoholic liquors. Not only was indulgence to great excess permissible, but by a great majority, it was considered highly respectable. Both gentlemen and ladies indulged without restraint, and to such a degree as to induce orgies indescribable, and almost beyond what could be now believed. Drinking was not only tolerated, but by many it was believed to be actually beneficial, and as Shakespeare himself thought, inspiring. Some were boastful of their capacity for indulgence, and were considered rather superior by reason thereof. It was thought to be a necessity in all conviviality, and as is natural, young gentlemen were rather proud than otherwise in being able to hold their own at drinking bouts. The polite morals of the times did not frown on the custom, and the result was, that young men were rather ashamed to refuse to indulge, and imagined it more manly to acquiesce in indulgence, even to excess, than to decline.

Under the prevailing conditions few were the young men who escaped exposure to the dangers of drunkenness, and generally, only those prevailed against it who were so fortunately constituted that their physical nature rebelled against its encroachments, making alcoholic drinks distasteful, and the effects hateful. Morals had little or nothing to do with immunity. Unfortunately Shakespeare was not favored, and it was without moral fault that he succumbed to an appetite which is so unaccountable, and to some so irresistible. From his own account he did not

freely or willingly surrender, but waged a resolute and determined defense, until his famishing art could no longer resist, and live.

So prevalent and menacing had drunkenness become at this time that sentiment began to rise against it, and demands were made for legislation to put the traffic in liquors under legal restraint, and this was the very incipiency of prohibition laws. In Sonnet 124 there is a defense of Wine, and probably a reference to the proposal to regulate its use. It is there that Shakespeare called reformed drunkards, 'fools of time,' and in the next sonnet, 'suborned informer.'

WERE THE SONNETS ADDRESSED
TO ANYONE?

Were the Sonnets addressed to any one in particular? Probably this question can never be answered with positiveness. It is not credible that the sonnets in their true and deep meaning, were to be read as applying to any individual. It can hardly be doubted that the construction or interpretation which has been given to them in this review, is the one intended. The only mystery remaining is the reason for the disguise in which the meaning was dressed. That disguise becomes the truly perplexing part of the Sonnets. Was it Shakespeare's purpose to so obscure the meaning that it might not be discovered? That is not for a moment admissible. To so believe would be to hold the Sonnets excuseless, and to find that the writer had gone to infinite pains to produce something without a purpose-to propound an unsolvable puzzle. On the contrary, it is certain that Shakespeare himself was under the impression that the sonnets could be easily read to express the meaning hidden in them. In the 76th sonnet he declares as much. There he says, 'Why write I still all one, ever the same, and keep invention in a noted (well-known) weed, that every word doth almost tell my name, showing their birth, and where they did proceed?' And in the 62d he gives a clear key to the construction, when he says: "Tis thee, myself, that for myself I praise, painting my age with beauty of thy (my) days.' The Sonnets are a history of the predominating feature of his life, in almost endless repetition, each expression telling his 'name' (divulging his meaning). All of his invention, or verse, is in the same familiar vein, or 'weed,' showing the origin or 'birth,' and 'where they did proceed,' or result, of his pas

sionate appetite. In the beginning of the Sonnets the disguise is perfect, and can scarcely be penetrated, but as they proceed the inward meaning becomes more and more evident, until in the last 25 sonnets, the disguise is practically discarded.

It is the writer's belief, that it was Shakespeare's purpose in the beginning to express the truth, as it has been shown to have been expressed, and at the same time to delude some one, an addressee, into believing that the Sonnets were actually addressed to him.

The Elizabethan poet lacked very much of earning a sufficient living from his writings. His life was a struggle for existence, and he was compelled to seek the favor and patronage of wealthy men, rather than rely upon the sale of his literary products. Copyright was then unknown to the law, and the only value which accrued to a writer was such as he might be able to obtain by direct sale of his works to some publisher. Once published, any literary work, became liable to be pirated by any one who might care to make other publications of it.

In 1623, seven years after the death of Shakespeare, two friends of his, John Heminge and Henry Condell, published all of Shakespeare's plays in one volume, which is now known as the 'first folio.' In a preface they condemn all previous publications of separate plays as, "stolen and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by the frauds and stealths of injurious impostors." It is thus evident how slight was the value of one's composition, and if the facts are as stated, Shakespeare received nothing at all from the publication of his plays. His pecuniary rewards, and they must have been comparatively small, must have come altogether from proprietors of the theatres. This was in the form of an outright purchase, after which no returns would be likely. How much was paid to the author by the theatres we have no means of knowing. Undoubtedly the amount was small and varied with the reputation of the author, and the character of the play. Ben Jonson, who was the literary celebrity of Shakespeare's time, and who undoubtedly was better known and more highly appreciated than was Shakespeare, is reported as saying that for all of his numerous plays he had not received as much as two hundred pounds. That his plays were highly esteemed is certain, and is evidenced by the numerous encomiums, in verse and otherwise, with which they were received, while so far as known Shakespeare's plays received but scant notice.

Notwithstanding the high and almost universal regard in which Jonson was held, his remuneration came not from the sale of his works either to the theatres or publishers, but from pensions granted by the state through the influence of royalty and those in high places, and also from the patronage of the rich. He was granted annuities and pensions, and lavished with gifts, and received handsome rewards for many masques which were written expressly for the celebration of royal and noble functions. Even with all these he was frequently in very straitened circumstances, and besought aid from his patrons to relieve his necessities. It is therefore very improbable that Shakespeare, much less favorably situated was ever easy financially, and undoubtedly he like others of his time was glad enough to receive patronage from those able to grant it.

It is concluded therefore that Shakespeare was willing to have some wealthy noble believe that the Sonnets were addressed to him, and through the apparent praise therein expressed may have profited, but to what extent it is useless to speculate. The fact that 'Mr. W. H.' is mentioned in the dedication is a strong indication that he was the person deluded into believing that Shakespeare saw in him the wonderful qualities which were ascribed to the apparent addressee. That he was the recipient and depository of the Sonnets seems almost certain, for that fact is the only excuse appearing for the mention of his name in connection with the Sonnets. The first 18 sonnets, had they not been supplemented by others, could very well have misled any one into believing that he was really the object of Shakespeare's interest and devotions, as indeed he may have been in one sense, for there must have been intimacy and a companionship between them to have justified the endearing terms that are used. Possibly, even probably, they were convivial friends during the whole of the period of three years mentioned in Sonnet 104, and may have continued so throughout the continuance of the composition of the Sonnets. All this however must be admitted to be pure speculation.

Shakespeare could not have indulged his abnormal appetite without a considerable burden of expense, and it seems a very reasonable suggestion that he purposely cultivated the friendship of 'W. H.', who may have been William Herbert, a wealthy young nobleman, in order that he, Shakespeare, might be supplied with funds for his necessary indulgements. Such ample