way, a state of society in the Elizabethan age and in subsequent reigns, not openly tolerated in our day. It would be assumed that a man in Shakespeare's circumstances would have a mistress and live a life of pleasure. The Court of King James was lax in morals, gallants of that and succeeding royal administrations would have been ashamed not to have on their hands intrigues and amours that would keep up court scandal. It would be difficult to maintain a high-toned morality when the nobility of a kingdom was enlarged by the illegitimate children of the king. We are not to be surprised therefore that Shakespeare had alliances that brought him trouble. When we remember the man, that of all men he most clearly understood humanity in its beauties and deformities, remember that the human race develops itself in social relations and that its most commendable qualities are affection, kindly associations for help and mutual support, admiration and love culminating in marriage and family life, we can comprehend the range of his thoughts. From this starting point his comedies and tragedies grew and took form. By reason of his personal endowments friendships were in

evitable. He had his boon companions, his genial associates, his feminine admirations. I think, he felt that coming from the country he was raw in manners and must imitate city ways and form city associations, I give this as my opinion simply derived from appearances. He is acknowledged to have made some of the dramatists models for a time. I think he looked with a youthful awe upon those who had seen courtly life. He sought to be intimate with W. H. a handsome boy or youth, to cultivate a friendship that has been compared to that of David and Jonathan. He flattered this young man, desired to be with him, asserted his devotion to him over and over, till, at this distance he seems to have been absurdly obsequious in his attempts at familiarity. Again Shakespeare lacked iron in the blood. He fell under the notice of a dark lady who fascinated him. She was not handsome, indeed to a critical eye coarse in feature, but he could not resist her basilisk eye, and was bewitched by the music which she could draw from instruments at her command. Between these two persons he had a sorry experience. W. H. was frivolous and roguish, the woman

heartless and treacherous. The boy beguiled the poet's mistress, she was false to her vows, but was soon scorned by her new lover and became again the enchanter of the poet. He was racked with shame and remorse but for a time, at least, unable to resist his temptress. All these experiences he wrote down in the sonnets, with tedious repetition, with many clumsy expressions, yet with many lines of exquisite beauty and inspiring poetic imagery. These sonnets he must have sent to W. H. in intervals of friendly confidence, as letters intended to retain his allegiance and foster continued familiarity. In the course of time W. H. published them and opened to the world the secret workings of the poet's heart.

Shakespeare was forty-five when the sonnets were published, but I think they were the product of his earlier days and that he had long outgrown the follies they commemorate. His later plays indicate a manliness and self-control that win the respect, and, under the circumstances, the admiration of his readers.

The sonnets remain an enigma. The view I have presented seems to me the best that has fallen under my observation, and co

incides with my impressions as I have read them.

As a specimen of other views I notice that of Park Goodwin. He thought they were written from time to time on tablets and thrown into a drawer and after a time published without any regard for order. Godwin studied them with great care, wrote them out in prose as he understood them, and put them in the order in which they were written, as he believed.

He began with one introductory, followed with nine independent ones; in the next sixteen he found a plea for poetic art; a description of a young love-time followed in the next thirty-seven; the episode of the dark lady occupies thirtyseven; the closing fifty set forth the author's communion with the higher muse.

Godwin's prolonged study and great critical ability entitle his theory to consideration, but it seems to me too ideal. Of all men Shakespeare was the most difficult to adjust to a theory.

It may be worth while to say, that not attempting an exhaustive classification of them I have set some, as specimens, under descriptive designations, terms and numbers as follows,-Hard circumstances

of early life, 1; Homesick, 5; Rivals, 6; Melancholy, 1; Self-confidence, (writings eternal), 4; Depressed but hopeful, 4; Enthralled, 2; Life worthless, 1; Despair, 2; Lovesick, 6; Confession 2; True love, 3; Virtue slandered, 1; Betrayed and robbed,

6.

It is painful to pass in review these items of the poet's early life, but they were the schooling for his later labors. Without them we should not have had Lear and Hamlet. What he experienced in his own personal trials he saw besetting humanity at large. The slow but fine grinding of the mills of the gods continued so long as his appointed work compelled him to identify himself with his fellow creatures.

There are some plays clustering about the period between 1591 and 1594 which may come under consideration with the pre-dramatic poems. At this time the poet was practicing his art for the sake of the practice. Professor Baker, of Harvard University, calls it the period of experimentation in plotting.

In the period of discipline are to be placed the following plays: Love's Labor's Lost; The Two Gentlemen of Verona;