It is, I think, pretty clear that Mr. Hughes" is not the person who was "all men's pride," and who gave grace a double majesty." But if Tyrwhitt and Malone fell into the error of giving Shakspeare a patron and a subject somewhat too humble and obscure, Mr. George Chalmers has made a very opposite mistake, and in his anxiety to find a sufficiently dignified object for the Poet's praise and gratitude, has fixed upon royalty itself. He insists upon it that the whole series of Sonnets (154) is addressed to Queen Elizabeth. To those who are familiar with the Sonnets, and the palpable indications that many of them are addressed to a male object, this opinion seems too ridiculous to be received with any other answer than a laugh. I have gone through the Sonnets several times with great attention, to satisfy myself as to the sex of the object or objects of them, and the following are some of the many passages glaringly opposed to the notion of Mr. Chalmers : "Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest, Now is the time that face should form another; "Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye "Dear my love, you know, You had a father; let your son say so." Son. 13. "Now stand you on the top of happy hours; And many maiden gardens yet unset, With virtuous wish would bear you living flowers." Son. 16. "O carve not with thine hours my love's fair brow, And draw no lines there with thy antique pen; Him in thy course untainted do allow, For beauty's pattern to succeeding men." Son. 19. "Lord of my love, to whom in vassalage." Son. 26. "The region cloud hath masked him from me now; Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth." Son. 33. "Gentle thou art, and therefore to be won; Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed; And when a woman wooes, that woman's son Will sourly leave her till she have prevailed? Ah me! but yet thou might'st, my sweet, forbear, And chide thy beauty and thy straying youth, Son. 41. "Beauteous and lovely youth, When that shall fade, my verse distils your truth." Son. 54. "His beauty shall in these black lines be seen." Son. 63. "Ah! wherefore with imperfection should he live, And with his presence grace impiety, 'Nothing, sweet boy," &c. "O thou, my lovely boy, who in thy power." Son. 126. Queen Elizabeth must have been an old woman (about 64) when she was thus addressed by Shakspeare, according to Mr. George Chalmers, as his "sweet boy." The W. H. of the dedication, and the perpetual allusions to a male object, are no obstacles to our critic, who does not even hesitate to unsex the queen for the sake of his ingenious speculation. He supposes that the masculine phrases were addressed to her in her character of a sovereign? Some of the Sonnets that have a female object, are every thing but complimentary; and if they be really addressed to Elizabeth, either prove her majesty to have been a base and licentious woman, or William Shakspeare to have been guilty of a gross and malicious libel on a "" virgin queen. "In nothing art thou black, save in thy deeds." For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, Who art as black as hell, as dark as night." "O, though I love what others do abhor." He calls her also, in different sonnets, " his false plauge," his "femal evil," his "coloured ill," and accuses her of" seducing his friend." Absurd as is the conjecture of Mr. George Chalmers, there has been no want of mad or careless critics to keep him in countenance. The early editors, Gildon and Sewell, both maintained that the whole collection is addressed to a female? Some of the commentators have been puzzled by the amatory character of the expressions unequivocally applied in many instances to a male object. But it should be remembered, that in the age of Shakspeare there was very little distinction between the ordinary expressions of love and friendship. The latter frequently borrowed the strongest language of the former. T Warton observes, that in the reign of Queen Elizabeth there were published entire sets of sonnets, devoted to the record of a species of tender attachment between male friends, which, though wholly free from any direct impurity of expression, or open immodesty of sentiment, would not be tolerated in these days. He alludes, as an instance, to the "Affectionate Shepherde," of Richard Barnfielde, printed in 1595, in a series of twenty "not inelegant" sonnets, which were exceedingly popular. The poet bewails his unsuccessful love for a beautiful youth, in "a strain of the most tender passion, yet with professions of the chastest affection." The meaning attached to the ardent phrases that are now confined to the intercourse of sexual passion, is not to be given by the modern reader to the same expressions in some of our elder writers. It will be generally admitted, however, that the revolution in our language in this respect is a very pleasant and proper one; and it cannot be denied, that in too much of the poetry of the 15th and 16th centuries, the effect of great originality, force, and beauty of the imagery and thought, is often injured by the disagreeable feeling, bordering on disgust, with which we encounter expressions that, however customary and decorous in the olden time, have acquired an air of indelicacy, in consequence of the great change that has since occurred in their meaning and their mode of application. Dr. Drake has entered into a very elaborate and certainly a very ingenious and plausible disquisition, to prove that the first one hundred and twentysix of the sonnets are addressed to Lord Southampton. I think, however, that I have discovered various reasonable objections to this hypothesis. The first seventeen sonnets, which so strongly urge the Poet's friend to marry, could scarcely have been addressed to Lord Southampton, because that nobleman, then not quite 22 years of age, assiduously courted Mrs. Vernon in 1595 (about 14 years before the Sonnets were published, and three years before they were alluded to by Meres* *It is possible that Meres may have alluded to the Sonnets in the Passionate Pilgrim, published in 1599. Leigh Hunt as being in private circulation amongst the poet's friends), and he married her (his marriage having been delayed by the interference of Queen Elizabeth) in 1599. In the next place, almost the only praise bestowed on these Sonnets, is that of extraordinary beauty, and I do not recollect that Lord Southampton has been celebrated for the wonderful perfection of his face or person, though, if his portrait in Malone's Shakspeare be authentic, he was by no means uncomely. His wit and learning were, however, indisputable, and were warmly eulogized by Chapman, Brathwaite, Nash, and other contemporary writers; but throughout the 126 Sonnets, supposed to be dedicated to his merits, it is remarkable that there are but two allusions to any mental qualities. The first of the following quotations almost implies a want of mind, or at all events that the world gave the object of the sonnet no credit for mental endowments, though his personal beauty was generally admitted: "Those parts of thee that the world's eye doth view, [mend; Want nothing that the thoughts of hearts can All tongues (the voice of souls) give thee that due, Uttering bare truth, even so as foes commend, But those same tongues that give thee so thine To thy fair flower add the rank smell of weeds; The next passage, however, is an acknowledgment, though on the part of the poet only, of his possessing mental excellence. "Thou art as fair in knowledge as in hue." Son. 82. But even this compliment may have been extorted from the writer by the reproaches of his friend, who it appears was inordinately fond of praise, has fallen into a sad mistake, in supposing that the 154 sonnets were not published till after the poet's death. + His features were at all events masculine, but in the 20th Sonnet the poet exclaims "A woman's face, with Nature's own hand painted, Hast thou, the master-mistress of my passion." and no doubt felt somewhat piqued at the absence of all allusion to the qualities of his mind. "I never saw that you did painting need, Son. 83. "You to your beauteous blessings add a curse, Being fond on praise." Son. 84. "Farewell thou art too dear for my possessing, And like enough thou know'st thy estimate.' Son. 87. This last line seems to be a strange mode of address to a respected nobleman, and the poet's patron. If the object of the Sonnets was intellectually gifted, and it was thought desirable to please and compliment him, it would seem that mental endowments must have been of very minor importance in the poet's estimation, and beauty every thing, even in a man. As we observed before, in only two places in 126 sonnets, or 1764 lines, supposed to be devoted to eulogiums on a single male character, is there any allusion to his mind, while almost every line conveys some compliment to his exterior charms. Had he been distinguished for any other qualification than his pretty looks, we think Shakspeare was not the man to have done injustice to his merit. Even his moral character appears as doubtful as his intellectual. In Son net 33 he says, that as "full many a glorious morning" has permitted "The basest clouds to ride With ugly rack on his celestial face, And from the forlorn world his visage hide, Stealing unseen to west with his disgrace: E'en so my sun one early morn did shine, With all triumphant splendour on his brow; But out! alack! he was but one hour mine, The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now. Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth; Suns of the world may stain, when heaven's sun staineth." This surely implies something infa- To dry the rain on my storm-beaten face, Nor can thy shame give physick to my grief." In Sonnet 35, the Poet exhorts him to be no longer grieved at what he has done, for "Roses have thorns, and silver fountains mud." But in Sonnet 95 he again alludes to his faults, and exclaims "O! what a mansion have those vices got, Is this the style in which Shakspeare would have addressed his distinguished patron? It affords another very strong presumption against the notion that Lord Southampton was the object of so many of these sonnets by the greatest of our English poets, that his remarkable personal bravery, his gallant action at sea, in which he sunk a Spanish frigate, and was wounded in the arm, his many and strange duels, the personal and public assault on him by Lord Grey, his imprisonment in the Tower by Elizabeth, and his restoration to liberty and honour by King James, are in no instance in the slightest degree alluded to, though we should think that they must naturally have occurred to the mind of his friend and admirer, when collecting topics of sympathy or eulogium. It is to be observed also, that between the ages of Shakspeare and Southampton, there was only a difference of nine years, and yet the Poet alludes to the autumn of his own life, and the spring of the object of the Sonnets. The last Sonnet in the number supposed to be addressed to a male, speaks of him as a "lovely boy." I find myself in some respects partly forestalled in these objections to Dr. Drake's hypothesis, by a writer in the Gentleman's Magazine for September and October, 1832. My notes on this subject, however, though not published, were printed as memoranda for my own use (on a few slips of paper only), at the Hurkaru Newspaper Office, in this city, at least four years ago, and I have still some of the proofs in my possession. I do not wish to deduct from the merit of the writer alluded to, but to protect myself from the charge of plagiarism on account of a mere coincidence of opinion. The contributor to the Gentleman's Magazine has endeavoured to prove, in a very shrewd and able paper, that Lord Southampton is not the person ad dressed in the first 126 sonnets, and that the real object of them is Mr. William Herbert, subsequently third Earl of Pembroke. This article is already so long, that I dare not encroach on the reader's patience with a regular analysis of the writer's argument. I admire his sagacity and acuteness, and I admit that many of his illustrations tell with great effect; but yet I am by no means satisfied that he has solved the riddle which has perplexed and puzzled so many learned heads. I must just briefly state, that he places considerable stress on the following facts. The initials in the dedication may apply to the name W. Herbert, while they.cannot be applied to H. Wriothesley (Earl of Southampton), except by an unjustifiable transposition. The first also was eminently handsome, and therefore worthy of the praises lavished on the beauty of the object of the Sonnets. Lord Southampton was in this respect not remarkable. The difference between the ages of Herbert and Shakspeare, agrees better with certain passages in the Sonnets, than that between Lord Southampton and the poet. The notice of "a better spirit," who interfered with our great poet's influence with his patron, alludes to Daniel (a highly celebrated and popular poet at the time), who it is known had dedicated to William Herbert; whereas Spenser, erroneously supposed to be alluded to, did not dedicate to Herbert. From these and other "united proofs," as he calls them, the writer conceives that "the question to whom Shakspeare's Sonnets are addressed?-is now decided.* * Mr. B. Heywood Bright, in the Octobernumber (1832) of the Gentleman's Magazine, in which the second part of J. B.'s article appears, puts forth a claim to the merit of the same supposed discovery. He says, that in 1819 he had convinced himself by laborious researches that W. Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, was the person to whom Shakspeare addressed 126 of the sonnets. A friend, whom he refers to (the Rev. Jos. Hunter), acknowledges that his hypothesis was communicated to him, "many years ago. He (Mr. Bright) was warned, he says, that by delaying the publication, he was putting to hazard an honourable opportunity of securing to himself some literary reputation; but was prevented, by more pressing pursuits, from preparing his notes for publication." I shall state my reasons for still remaining sceptical on this intricate question. The Earl of Pembroke, though certainly a patron of Shakspeare, was not so generally known as such, as Lord Southampton was, and the Sonnets frequently allude to the "publick kindness shown to the poet." Lord Southampton is said to have presented him with the munificent gift of a thousand pounds, a sum at that period equal to five thousand pounds in the present day. This large donation is supposed to have been bestowed on Shakspeare in the decline of his life, to enable him to purchase "New Place," at Stafford, when he was about to retire from public life. So early as 1594, in the dedication of the Rape of Lucrece, the Poet merely dedicates his book, but observes, "the love I dedicate to your lordship is without end." He also adds, "what I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have devoted yours." Is it likely that his noble patron, who appears to have favoured him with such warm friendship and generous assistance from the commencement of the Poet's career to its close, should have been thus indirectly slighted or insulted, as he must have been if the Sonnets, which are often expressive of such exclusive friendship, gratitude, and duty, were addressed to William Herbert? In the account by the Oxford historian A. à Wood, of the life and character of the Earl of Pembroke, he is described as "learned and endowed to admiration with a poetical genius, as by those amorous and not inelegant airs and poems of his composition doth evidently appear; some of which had musical notes set to them by Henry Lawes." Can it be supposed that Shakspeare would have dedicated 126 sonnets to the praise of a poet whose pieces had been set to music by a popular composer, without a single allusion to his poetical genius? Shakspeare knew too well the nature of the commendation which a poet most * Dr. Drake has inadvertently omitted to notice these expressions, which would have told strongly in support of his own speculation. I am surprised that D'Israeli, with his passion for literary research, has not paid attention to this subject. dearly covets, to be guilty of so offensive an omission. I would draw another argument against Dr. Drake and the Magazine writer who signs himself J. B.-(I believe John Boaden) from the inconsistent and contradictory character of the dedication. The more I think of it, the more I am convinced that Shakspeare had nothing to do with the publication of the Sonnets. It is clear as the sun at noon-day that some of the Sonnets are addressed to a male object and others to a female. But the dedication is addressed to a single individual, who is described as the "only begetter" of them. There has been a great deal of quibbling upon the word " begetter;" some critics insisting that it means the "obtainer,' and others the object or inspirer. For my own part I think it means the obtainer, for this seems the most easy and natural interpretation, and is attended with the fewest difficulties, though it partly nullifies much of the ingenious conjectural criticism of both Dr. Drake and J. B. The Sonnets having been some years in circulation amongst the author's friends, we ought not to be surprised that they should at last have found their way into print without his sanction. The assertion that the person who gave or sold them to the bookseller is the only obtainer of them, is a bookseller's boast, precisely in the style of a modern fashionable publisher. If Shakspeare had had any thing to do with the superintendance of the publication, he would hardly have allowed himself to be styled our ever living poet;" or supposing that the practice of the age might have carried off the appearance of any peculiar impropriety in such a puff direct from his own bookseller, it is not to be credited for a moment that he would have left it to a mere trader to dedicate his work to either of his high and noble patrons. Shakspeare did not bring out his two first poems in this way. They were openly inscribed to his great patron, not giving him the sneaking and disrespectful address of Mr. W. H., but his full rank, the Right Honourable Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton and Baron of Titchfield. That the whole of the 154 Sonnets cannot have been exclusively addressed to one individual, will admit of no reasonable doubt; and yet if we are to believe that the dedication was addressed to Mr. W. H., as the sole object of the Sonnets, the dedicator committed an egregious blunder. Is it likely that such a blunder would have been passed over by the eye of Shakspeare? The bookseller's application of the term 'adventurer' to himself, seems an additional indication that the risk and responsibility of the speculation were exclusively his own. It is impossible, in Calcutta, to obtain every work that would be useful in literary inquiries of this nature; but I have had the good fortune to fall in with many books and separate essays in Magazines bearing reference to the present subject, and have been surprised that the dedication of the Sonnets should have been (as it appears to me) invariably misunderstood, and that no doubts should ever have been expressed as to the authenticity of the first edition of these poems. Every one knows that Shakspeare was careless to a fault in these matters; and though he once expressed to a friend his anger at the insolence of a bookseller who published his Passionate Pilgrim, without giving any notice to the author, the latter seems to have been more annoyed at the introduction into the volume of certain poems of his contemporaries under his name, than at the liberty taken with his own productions. His plays were repeatedly published in a surreptitious and most inaccurate and disgraceful manner, but it does not appear that he ever took any steps to check a system of piracy so much calculated to injure his reputation. Any other author I would have sunk under the accumulated blunders and nonsense of his editors. But though it appears pretty clear, to my apprehension, that W. H. in the dedication, cannot be the "only" object of the Sonnets, I am not sure that some of them may not have been addressed to him; and as he was probably one of the private friends, amongst whom the whole of the Sonnets were circulated, his vanity might have prompted him to give copies of them to the bookseller, that he might see the same addressed to himself in a printed collection. The bookseller, in his eagerness and |