spectacle to dull, commonplace people, whose troubles are of another order, and, when Thorpe published the Sonnets there were, no doubt, plenty of Philistines to make merry over their poor, pitiful story. But I cannot think that Shakespeare had any share in helping them to this ignoble pleasure. From the Sonnets themselves one may see how much Shakespeare was averse to any laying bare of his own feelings to the public gaze, how little likely he was

To wear his heart upon his sleeve

For daws to peck at.

This is expressed clearly enough in the first four lines of Sonnet 110, which the commentators have, as it seems to me, only partially understood.

Alas, 'tis true I have gone here and there

And made myself a motley to the view,

Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear,
Made old offences of affections new.

This is generally interpreted to express Shakespeare's dislike to the profession of an actor, and this view is, no doubt, correct as far as it goes. But it covers only a small part of the meaning. "To strut and fret his hour upon the stage" was, no doubt, often very unpleasant to the great poet, but what was far more repugnant to him was that disclosure of his own feelings, that revelation of himself, which could be seen in his plays by those who knew him intimately. He had "gored his own thoughts," and turned his own fresh griefs into dreams of by-gone ages.1

Taking all these considerations together, we may then, I think, safely conclude that all the Sonnets were published without Shakespeare's co-operation or consent, and that the Quarto of 1609 was a literary piracy to be classed with these "diverse, stolen, and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by the frauds and stealthes of injurious impostors that exposed them "-of which Heminge and Condell complain in the preface to the first Folio.

Let us, then, take this unauthorised publication as practically proved, and see what inferences naturally follow.

In the first place, there is the probability that we have a part, and perhaps only a small part, of all the Sonnets that Shakespeare wrote. As far back as 1598, Meres made his often quoted reference to Shakespeare's "sugared Sonnets among his private friends," and it is

This seems to be the meaning of "made old offences of affections new." Professor Dowden's interpretation, which Mr. Tyler follows, "entered into new friendships and loves which were transgressions against my old love," appears to me beside the mark,

not at all likely that Thorpe managed to lay his thievish hands on all of them. One or two passages themselves may be cited which make it clear that he did not. Sonnet 115 begins

Those lines that I before have writ do lie,

Even those that said I could not love thee dearer ;

where we have a clear reference to some Sonnet (or other poem) not extant in our collection.

Again, in Sonnet 105 the poet admits that there is a monotony in his themes, that he has rung the changes too often on the three ideas of "fair, kind, and true." Now these complaints cannot be brought against the Sonnets of our collection, which are certainly not occupied with praising either the affection or fidelity of the person or persons addressed. We have, therefore, a clear indication that we have lost, not one Sonnet only, but a considerable number.

Then, on the other hand, it is possible that many of the Sonnets we have are not Shakespeare's. Jaggard had ten years before published a lot of miscellaneous poetry by various authors under Shakespeare's name; Thorpe may have supplied any deficiency of matter by giving the work of some other poet. The Quarto contains just eighty pages, which looks as if the amount of matter was adjusted for the convenience of the printer, so as not to extend or fall below an exact number of sheets. But though there is nothing at all improbable in supposing that Thorpe attributed to Shakespeare what was not Shakespeare's, yet I do not think there are many Sonnets which internal evidence would lead us to reject. Perhaps Sonnet 145 is the one we should condemn most readily, the metre being different and the workmanship inferior. And certainly one might be very glad to dissociate No. 151 from Shakespeare's name; it is not only obscene but sickly and nauseous, and may well have come from some other hand. The few other Sonnets which would have to be expelled from a Bowdlerised edition are not really repulsive in the same way, and their double meanings can be matched in the plays. But though it would be going too far to infer that Shakespeare did not write these Sonnets, it is hardly likely he would have wished to see them in print, and their presence in Thorpe's edition is another argument against Shakespeare's having had anything to do with its publication.

We may notice, too, that the two Sonnets published in the "Passionate Pilgrim," Nos. 138 and 144, are both of this ambiguous character. I put 144 into this dubious category on account of line 12, I guess one angel in another's hell,

where the reference to a well-known story of Boccaccio seems to me

clear enough, though it has apparently escaped the notice of the

commentators.1

But this view of piratical publication is still more important in its bearing upon the order in which the Sonnets stand, and the question as to whether we may divide them into two series addressed each to one particular individual. On the latter point this much may be said.

Shakespeare wrote Sonnets to several people. This is clear from the evidence of Meres, for his words "Sonnets among his private friends" could hardly be referred to two individuals, one of whom was a woman. If the poet had published the Sonnets himself he might possibly have restricted his selection to the Sonnets addressed to one or other of these two people. But if Thorpe brought out the edition on his own account, it is not at all likely that he would limit his choice in the same way; he probably was glad to publish all he could lay hands on. And in fact, if we once accept the idea that the edition of 1609 was made without authority, we shall have no difficulty in seeing that there are several Sonnets which clearly do not belong to what we may call the main body, and more which probably do not. For example, Sonnets 26 and 116, different in themselves, are still more different from those which we can certainly refer to the "lovely boy," or the "dark lady." Sonnets 129 and 146, two of the finest we have, are not addressed to any person at all. The latter is a religious Sonnet, a kind of Lenten meditation which can hardly be connected in idea with the faithless mistress or the false friend.

And so with regard to the order in which the Sonnets stand; this hypothesis of piratical publication accounts for the confused arrangement which is perceptible even to the casual reader of the Sonnets. This disorder is not absolute chaos; there are signs of continuity, there are numbers which clearly stand together, but the breaks and gaps, the omissions and the wrong arrangements, are just as clear. And on the hypothesis I am maintaining the reason of this muddled state of things is obvious enough. Thorpe, left without any help from the author, could only print the Sonnets just as they stood on his MS. Those that, either in books or on sheets of paper, stood together he printed together, and so produced those traces of orderly arrangement which we see. The confusion which is equally evident was probably due, not only to his want of literary capacity, but also

1 Perhaps this allusion may be sufficient to show that some part of the translation of Boccaccio which appeared in 1620 was already existing in MS. some years before.

to the fact that he did not get possession of anything like all the Sonnets, and probably, too, to his ignorance as to the persons to whom the different numbers were addressed.

That there is plenty of confusion in the present order of the Sonnets it will not be difficult to show, and the inquiry is all the more necessary because such an immense amount of ingenuity has been expended in trying to find some connection of ideas between them as they now stand. I will just cite from Professor Dowden a passage which will serve to show on what scanty and insufficient grounds the existing arrangement has been accepted. On page 24 of his admirable edition he says: "That the Sonnets are not printed in the Quarto, 1609, at haphazard is evident from the facts that the 'Envoy' (126) is rightly placed; that poems addressed to a mistress follow those addressed to a friend, and that the two Cupid and Dian Sonnets stand together at the close."

Now, in reply to this it may be remarked, firstly, that the question is not one of absolute "haphazard." In whatever way the Sonnets were published, it would be very strange if there were no traces of consecutive arrangement. There is a very wide margin between complete chaos and an authoritative order. As to the "Envoy," it is sufficient to say that there are half a dozen Sonnets which might with equal fitness have stood in that place, and that Sonnet 126 itself might have come earlier without any inappropriateness. Neither is one certain of absolute correctness in saying that the "poems addressed to a mistress follow those addressed to a friend"; it is clear that after 126 there are no Sonnets to the friend, but not at all clear that among the earlier Sonnets there are none in honour of the mistress.

The two Cupid and Dian Sonnets are probably not by Shakespeare, but were thrown in to supply a deficiency of "copy" and fill up an exact number of sheets.

Now let me briefly point out some few instances of confused arrangement. One example might suffice; for the confusion of Sonnets 33-35 and 40-42 with 69, 70 ought to be enough of itself to show that the hypothesis of a single series chronologically arranged is altogether untenable.

In the earlier sequence the poet complains of the great outrage on friendship his friend has been guilty of, and further attempts to excuse the young man's general wantonness of disposition, concluding with a very fanciful and far-fetched apology for the especial and particular wrong which Shakespeare himself had suffered at his hands. 'That is, of course, with a "Lover's Complaint."

On the contrary, the man to whom Nos. 69 and 70 are addressed is praised for his chaste character, and defended from the aspersion of misjudging slanderers.1

For canker vice the sweetest buds doth love,

And thou present'st a pure unstained prime.
Thou hast pass'd by the ambush of young days,
Either not assail'd, or victor being charged;
Yet this thy praise cannot be so thy praise,
To tie up envy evermore enlarged.

It seems inconceivable that Shakespeare should write in this way to a man who had robbed him of his mistress. It is curious to notice that the first line I have quoted above is almost repeated from 35, "And loathsome canker lives in sweetest bud," though with an entire difference of meaning.

But it is perhaps in the interrupted sequences that we see the most striking instances of the want of proper arrangement. Thus the numbers referred to above, 33-35 and 40-42, form a closely connected sequence, but are separated by Sonnets entirely irrelevant.

Again, 39 probably, and certainly 26 and 27, belong to the series of Absence Sonnets, which begins with 43 and concludes with 52, and the right position of the two latter is probably after 51. And this sequence, from 43 to 52, is rudely interrupted by 49, which is manifestly out of place. Sonnet 61, which is now isolated, seems to belong to this series, and to be specially connected with 26 and 27.

Again, from 76 to 86 we have in the main what may be called the Rival Poet series. But in this sequence there are two irrelevant intrusions-77, which accompanied a present, evidently to some more distant friend than the "lovely boy," and 81, which is equally out of place.

When we come to the second division of the Sonnets-those which follow 126-the traces of order are fewer and we have almost utter chaos. The position of 129 is perhaps the most striking instance of the publisher's carelessness or inability; the tragic terror of this tremendous poem coming with the most absolute incongruity between two light and playful Sonnets might be enough of itself to mark the arbitrary character of the present arrangement. Again, in this latter series Nos. 143, 144 are plainly anterior to the sequence 133-135, which, chronologically, are the last of the Sonnets addressed to the "dark lady." For all the others are clearly prior to the discovery of her infidelity.

In line 10 of Sonnet 69 I should read "by their deeds," as, i.c., they guess your character from their own. In line 5 the Quarto gives "their" when " "thy"

or "thine" is obviously right; here the reverse mistake has been made.

VOL. CCLXXII. NO. 1933.

G