to be made to a bitter feeling of personal degradation allowed by Shakespeare to result from his connection with the stage. Is it conceivable that a man who encouraged a sentiment of this nature, one which must have been accompanied with a distaste and contempt for his profession, would have remained an actor years and years after any real necessity for such a course had expired? By the spring of 1602 at the latest, if not previously, he had acquired a secure and definite competence independently of his emoluments as a dramatist, and yet, eight years afterwards, in 1610, he is discovered playing in company with Burbage and Hemmings at the Blackfriars Theater. When, in addition to this voluntary long continuance on the boards, we bear in mind the vivid interest in the stage, and in the purity of the acted drama, which is exhibited in the well-known dialogue in Hamlet, and that the poet's last wishes included affectionate recollections of three of his fellow-players, it is difficult to believe that he could have nourished a real antipathy to his lower vocation. It is, on the contrary, to be inferred that, however greatly he may have deplored the unfortunate estimation in which the stage was held by the immense majority of his countrymen, he himself entertained a love for it that was too sincere to be repressed by contemporary disdain. If there is, among the defective records of the poet's life, one feature demanding special respect, it is the unflinching courage with which, notwithstanding his desire for social position, he braved public opinion in favor of a continued adherence to that which he felt was in itself a noble profession, and this at a time when it was not merely despised, but sur

rounded by an aggressive fanaticism that prohibited its exercise even in his own native town.

These considerations may suffice to eliminate a personal application from the two sonnets above mentioned, and as to the remainder, if the only safe method, that of discarding all mere assumptions, be strictly followed, the clearer the ideality of most of them, and the futility of arguments resting on any other basis, will be perceived. It will be observed that all the hypotheses, which aim at a complete biographical exposition of the Sonnets, necessitate the acceptance of interpretations that are too subtle for dispassionate reasoners. Even in the few instances where there is a reasonable possibility that Shakespeare was thinking of living individuals, as when he refers to an unknown poetical rival or quibbles on his own Christian name, scarcely any, if any, light is thrown on his personal feelings or character. In the latter case, it is a mere assumption that the second Will is the youth of the opening series, or, at least, that position cannot be sustained without tortuous interpretations of much which is found in the interval. With respect to other suggested personal revelations, such as those which are thought to be chronicled in Shakespeare's addresses to the dark-eyed beauty of more than questionable reputation, -unless, with a criminal indifference to the risk of the scandal traveling to the ears of his family, he had desired to proclaim to his acquaintances his own infidelity and folly, he might, perhaps, have repeated the words of the author of Licia, who published his own sonnets in the year 1593, and thus writes of their probable effects, "for the matter of love, it may bee I am so

devoted to some one, into whose hands these may light by chance, that she may say, which thou nowe saiest, that surelie he is in love, which if she doe, then have I the full recompence of my labour, and the poems have dealt sufficientlie for the discharge of their owne duetie.” The disguise of the ideal under the personal was then, indeed, an ordinary expedient.

In the Christmas holidays of 1598-1599, three plays, one of them in all probability having been the Merry Wives of Windsor, were acted by Shakespeare's company before the Queen at Whitehall, after which they do not appear to have performed at Court until the following December, an the 26th of which month they were at Richmond Palace. The poet's distinguished friend, Lord Southampton, was in London in the autumn of this year, and no doubt favored more than one theater with his attendance. In a letter dated October 11, 1599, his lordship is alluded to as spending his time "merrily in going to plays every day."

In March, 1599, the Earl of Essex departed on his ill-starred expedition to Ireland, leaving the metropolis amid the enthusiastic cheers of the inhabitants. He was then the most popular man in all England, hosts of the middle and lower classes regarding him as their chief hope for the redress of their grievances. At some time in May or June, while the suppression of the Irish was considered in his able hands a mere work of time, Shakespeare completed his play of King Henry the Fifth, taking the opportunity of introducing in it a graceful compliment to the Earl, in terms which indicate that the poet himself sympathized with the thousands of Londoners who fondly expected hereafter to welcome

his victorious return to England. Independently, however, of his appreciation of Essex, it was natural that the great dramatist should have taken a special interest in the course of affairs in Ireland, his great patron and friend, Lord Southampton, holding the distinguished position of General of the Horse in the Earl's army. There is no record of this drama in the year of its composition, but there is little or rather no doubt that it was produced on the diminutive boards of the Curtain Theater in the summer of 1599. It was favorably received and the character of Pistol appears to have been specially relished by the audiences. In or before the August of the following year, 1600, an unsuccessful attempt was made to obtain a license for its publication, but the only copy of it, printed in the author's lifetime, was a miserably imperfect and garbled one which was surreptitiously published about that time by Millington and Busby, and transferred by them very soon afterwards to Thomas Pavier, the latter reprinting this spurious edition in 1602 and 1608. It is curious that Pavier, who was so unscrupulous in other instances in the use of Shakespeare's name, should have refrained from placing it on the title-pages of any of those impressions. There are unequivocal indications that the edition of 1600 was fraudulently printed from a copy made up from notes taken at the theater.

Toward the close of this year, 1599, a renewed attempt was made by the poet to obtain a grant of coatarmor to his father. It was now proposed to impale the arms of Shakespeare with those of Arden, and on each occasion ridiculous statements were made respecting the claims of the two families. Both were really descended

from obscure English country yeomen, but the heralds made out that the predecessors of John Shakespeare were rewarded by the Crown for distinguished services, and that his wife's ancestors were entitled to armorial bearings. Although the poet's relatives at a later date assumed his right to the coat suggested for his father in 1596, it does not appear that either of the proposed grants was ratified by the college, and certainly nothing more is heard of the Arden impalement.

The Sonnets, first mentioned in the previous year, are now again brought into notice. They had evidently obtained a recognition in literary circles, but restrictive suggestions had possibly been made to the recipients, for, as previously observed, when Jaggard, in 1599, issued a tiny volume under the fanciful title of The Passionate Pilgrim, he was apparently not enabled to secure more than two of them. These are in the first part of the book, the second being entitled Sonnets to Sundry Notes of Music, but Shakespeare's name is not attached to the latter division. The publisher seems to have had few materials of any description that he could venture to insert under either title, for, in order to make something like a book with them, he adopted the, very unusual course of having nearly the whole of the tract printed upon one side only of each leaf. Not keeping a shop, he entrusted the sale to Leake, who was then the owner of the copyright of Venus and Adonis, and who published an edition of that poem in the same year, the two little volumes no doubt being displayed together on the stall of the latter at the Greyhound in St. Paul's Churchyard. With the exception of the two sonnets above alluded to, and a few verses taken from the already published