274
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. xn. OCT. 3, 1003.
poetic temper at times alternate with unimpressive
displays of verbal jugglery."
The same remarks would apply admirably
to the sonnets of Barnes. MR. INGLEBY main-
tains that Barnes was so poor a sonneteer
compared with Shakespeare that he could not
have written Sonnet Ixxxvi. Well, I present
him with the following sonnet, penned by
Barnes, for the purpose of comparison with
Sonnet Ixxxvi. :
Ah, sweet Content ! where is thy mild abode ?
Is it with shepherds, and light-hearted swains, Which sing upon the downs, and pipe abroad,
Tending their flocks and cattle on the plains? Ah, sweet Content ! where dost thou safely rest?
In Heaven, with Angels ? which the praises sing Of Him that made, and rules at His behest,
The minds and hearts of every living thing. Ah, sweet Content! where doth thine harbour hold?
Is it in churches, with religious men, Which please the gods with prayers manifold
And in their studies meditate it then ? Whether thou dost in Heaven or earth appear, Be where thou wilt ! thou wilt not harbour here !
Shakespeare produced much worse lines than these the doggerel of the lampoon on Lucy, of his epitaph at Stratford, and of 4 The Phoenix and the Turtle,' of which Mr. Sidney Lee remarks, " Happily Shakespeare wrote nothing else of like character."
Of * The Passionate Pilgrim ' MR. INGLEBY remarks :
"It is certainly beyond the limits of credence that Shakespeare would have desired to appear as the author of his contemporaries' inferior pro- ductions."
What are the facts ? In 1599 ' The Passion- ate Pilgrim' was published with the words " By W. Shakespeare " on the title-page. Only five of the poems in the volume were Shakespeare's, the bulk of the volume being by Barnfield, Griffin, Weelkes, Marlowe, Kaleigh, and others. This work was in circu- lation as the sole unaided work of Shake- speare till 1612 a period of thirteen years and Shakespeare never objected to the appearance of his name on the title as author. Does MR. INGLEBY maintain that Shakespeare neither saw nor heard of the book? If he had seen it, why did he not complain about the abuse of his name appended to "his contemporaries' inferior (?) productions"? In the third edition (1612) Hey wood objected to Shakespeare's (or laggard's) theft of two of his pieces, and "in the result the publisher warns to have removed bhakespeares name from the title-page of a few copies. This is the only instance on record of a protest on Shakespeare's part against the many injuries which he suffered at the hands of con- temporary publishera." 8. Lee, pp. 182-3. Curiously enough, there is only one copy extant -that in the Bodleian without
Shakespeare's name on the title-page, but
this copy also contains a title-page with the
name of Shakespeare printed thereon. In
1640 the * Poems ' of Shakespeare were pub-
lished, and included 'The Passionate Pil-
grim,' ' The Lover's Complaint,' and the
Sonnets, with translations of Ovid which
were certainly not the work of Shakespeare,
and since that date nearly every edition of
Shakespeare includes 'The Passionate Pil-
grim, 'of which Shakespeare only wrote five
of the twenty pieces it contains.
It is not generally known but the next number of 'Baconiana' will prove it that "the many injuries which Shakespeare suffered at the hands of contemporary pub-
lishers" could have been easily remedied
either by Shakespeare or the players
who held the plays, as in the days of
" Eliza and our James " there was recourse
at common laiv against the publication of any
work without the consent of the author or
his assignee. A pertinent question, there-
fore, is, If Shakespeare was the author of the
plays and poems piratically printed without
his consent or that of their legal possessors,
why did not he or they prosecute the
thieves ?
NE QUID NIMIS tells me the Sonnets " all came from one splendid head, and are auto- biographical of the same splendid genius." The " genius " is incontestable ; but if the " autobiographical " refers to Shakespeare, his statement is open to objection. We have had many commentators endeavouring to work the Sonnets into the life of Shakespeare, but every one of them has signally failed. Gerald Massey tried it in his ' Shakespeare's Sonnets' never before Interpreted, and his Private Friends Identified,' but without success. Even Mr. Sidney Lee confesses, "The autobio- graphic element in his sonnets is seen
to shrink to slender proportions." If they are autobiographical of anybody, a number of them are autobiographical of Bacon, Barnes, and others than Shakespeare.
NE QUID NIMIS also says :
"Moreover, the ' Parthenophil' of Barnes (1593) is too early in date to meet the case. It was after ' Lucrece' (1594) that the question of the rival poet or poets arose."
My critic forgets that my contention is that in 1593 Shakespeare had secured the patron- age of Southampton by means of ' Venus and Adonis.' In the same year Barnes endeavoured to get at the ears of South- ampton through 'Parthenophil,' and failed. tn 1594 'Lucrece' brought Shakespeare a further share of patronage, which Barnes
