that it is in the highest degree improbable that posterity will ever possess larger material than ourselves for judging the character of the greatest of poets; the critical conclusions drawn by Mr. Lee from his facts are of course open to question. : The sources of our biographical knowledge are of two kinds the external records that remain of Shakespeare's life and actions, and the autobiographical record that he has himself left us of his feelings. With regard to the former, it can hardly be said that information has been advanced much beyond the point to which it was brought by the careful investigation of Mr. Halliwell - Phillips. William Shakespeare was born at Stratford-on-Avon on the 22nd or 23rd of April 1564, being the son of John Shakespeare and Mary, his wife, who was the daughter of Robert Arden, a yeoman of gentle family in the neighbourhood of Stratford. His father appears to have been a glover and dealer in corn and wool, probably wellinclined to the ancient religion, since his name is on the list of suspected recusants after the penal legislation of 1581. William was perhaps sent to the Free School at Stratford in 1571, and would doubtless have been there taught thoroughly the rudiments of Latin and Greek. According to the story communicated by Betterton to Rowe he was brought up to the wool-trade. Aubrey says that he exercised his father's trade, and maintains this to have been a butcher's. In November 1582 he entered into a bond in anticipation of his marriage with Anne or Agnes Hathaway, daughter of a neighbouring farmer; and on May 26, 1583, was born his eldest daughter, Susanna. Twins, Hamnet (who died in 1596) and Judith, were afterwards born to him in February 1585. Between 1585 and 1588 he was obliged to leave Stratford, Rowe says, in consequence of having been engaged in deer-stealing in the park of Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote; and though this story rests on slight authority it seems certain that in The Second Part of Henry IV. Shakespeare intended to satirise some one of the name of Lucy in the person of Justice Shallow. Whether from fear of the animosity of Sir Thomas or some other reason, Shakespeare, having determined to seek his livelihood in London, did not return to his home in Stratford for a long time, though he is said to have visited his family there once a year. According to the tradition of Davenant, he at first supported himself by holding horses at the door of the theatres; another report says that he became a prompter's attendant, his duty being "to give the performers notice to be ready to enter as often as the business of the play required their appearance on the stage." At what date he began his career as an actor or a playwright is uncertain; but as we may, in my opinion, confidently assign to him the authorship of Titus Andronicus, and may infer from Ben Jonson's expressions that this play was a work of nearly the same date as The Spanish Tragedy, it is reasonable to conclude that he was writing for the stage before 1590. We know for certain, from Greene's testimony, that he had established a high reputation as a dramatist in 1592. After this date many circumstances attest his rapid advance in prosperity and position. In 1593 his Venus and Adonis, which he calls "the first heir of my invention,” is dedicated to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, one of the most influential of Elizabeth's courtiers, while his Sonnets, whoever may have been the person to whom they were addressed, show the closeness of his companionship with men of high birth and station. To Southampton he dedicated in 1594 his Rape of Lucrece, and in this year he acted before the Queen, who, as we know from Ben Jonson's memorial lines, always held him in the highest esteem. Coat armour was granted to his father, John Shakespeare, in October 1596, no doubt through his influence; in 1597 he bought New Place, a large house with an acre of land in the town of Stratford. In 1599 he was admitted to a share in the profits of the Globe Theatre, and these were so considerable as to enable him in 1602, besides purchasing 107 acres of land at Stratford, to enlarge the borders of New Place. He also made money by the lease of tithes, and by dealing in malt. Continuing to write steadily for the stage up to 1610 or 1611, he retired, probably about that date, to Stratford, where he lived till his death on April 23 (perhaps his birthday), 1616. [In his will he bequeaths his "Soul to Almighty God, and to our blessed Lady, Saint Mary, and to all the holy Company of Heaven." These words may have been a mere formality: Davies, however, says that he died a Papist.] With a life superficially so prosperous, and so devoid of incident deserving of record, it would be difficult indeed to connect dramas the most varied and versatile, the most profound and impassioned, that the world possesses, had not the poet himself partially lifted the veil, and revealed to us in his Sonnets glimpses at least of his deepest emotions. We have no external evidence as to the date at which these poems were written: to judge from the Sonnets themselves they were the work of different periods of Shakespeare's life. Some of them were in existence in 1598, when Meres mentions among his other productions his "Sugred Sonnets"; and two of them (ccxxxviii., cxliv.) were surreptitiously included by the printer Jaggard in The Passionate Pilgrim, a poetical miscellany published in 1599. The entire collection was not printed till 1609, when it was issued by T. T. (Thomas Thorpe), with a dedication to Mr. W. H., "the onlie begetter of these insuing Sonnets." The Sonnets (with a few omissions) were afterwards included in a volume containing, among other compositions, "Poems by Wil. Shakespeare," published by Benson in 1640; the order in which they were originally arranged being altered by the editor. They have two main aspects of interest: one personal, the other poetical; they apparently contain direct references to facts and individuals; they seem to express deep and sincere emotions. But on closer examination we find ourselves perplexed by questions whether the personal references are real or fictitious, and, if real, who are the persons referred to; how far the feelings supposed in them are genuine, and, if genuine at all, what allowance is to be made for the strong element of imagination that mingles itself with reality. Just as has happened to the भ critics of Shakespeare's plays, opposite schools of interpretation have arisen, each developing one aspect of the case as if it excluded the other: the Sonnets have been construed by one party as literal records of autobiographical fact, by the other as exercises of abstract and metaphysical imagination. Mr. Lee sees that the truth probably lies between the two extremes; and that the right interpretation of the Sonnets must depend upon the exercise of critical tact and perception. His survey of the whole question brings the points at issue into clear perspective; and I shall content myself with a brief summary of the opinions advanced on either side, concluding with my own opinion of the net result of the controversy. First with regard to the persons referred to in the Sonnets. The majority of modern critics identify Mr. W. H. with William Herbert, afterwards Earl of Pembroke, but a considerable minority, among whom is Mr. Lee, ascribe the inspiration to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. For seventy years, however, after their first publication, the Sonnets were supposed to be written to a woman; and this long tradition has suggested to some of the commentators the most surprising hypotheses. G. Chalmers imagined that they were addressed to Queen Elizabeth; H. W. Hudson that many of them were inspired by Anne Hathaway; Coleridge confessed that it seemed to him "that the Sonnets could only have come from a man deeply in love, and in love with a woman.' Since it was impossible that the craze that Bacon was the author of Shakespeare's works should not infect the interpretation of the Sonnets, one critic is of opinion that these poems were written by Bacon to be read by William Herbert to the Queen, and thereby win back her regard for the offending truant, Essex. Elizabeth was a black beauty, not literally, but as hostile in mind and will to Essex." In order to show his originality, 1 Apology for the Believers in the Shakespeare Papers, 1797. 2 Shakespeare, his Life, Art, and Character, p. 24. 3 Table Talk, p. 245. 3 4 William Thomson, The Renascence Drama, p. 133, cited in Dowden's edition of Shakespeare's Sonnets, p. 106. another divines that these poems were addressed by Shakespeare to his son-an illegitimate one; and the proof of this is to be found in the lines: Even so my Sun one early morn did shine With all triumphant splendour on my brow. 1 The palm for profound divination must be awarded to Herr Barnstorff, a German critic, who concludes that the object of Shakespeare's idolatry, Mr. W. H., was no other than " William Himself." 2 ་ 3 Of the other persons alluded to in the Sonnets, the rival poet is by some supposed, on grounds not altogether unreasonable, to be Samuel Daniel; who was a pupil of Dr. Dee, and a believer in judicial astrology, and who in 1601 dedicated his Defence of Ryme to Lord Pembroke ; but a new claimant for the honour was put forward in 1874 by the late Professor Minto, namely George ChapThe sole foundation for this theory is in the lines : man. No, neither he, nor his compeers by night, According to Professor Minto these words are to be interpreted in connection with two passages in Chapman's works, one in his Shadow of Night, which explains the word "compeers by night": All you possessed with indepressed spirits, Come, consecrate with me to sacred night Your whole endeavours, and detest the light : and the other in the Dedication to that poem, which explains the word "familiar” :— Now what a supererogation in wit this is, to think Skill so mightily pierced with their loves that she should prostitutely show them her secrets, when she will scarcely be looked upon 1 G. Travers Smith, Victorian Review for December 1880. |