he surer
indications of emotional conflicts that went to the heart of the man's
nature. At their worst, the sonnets may have been only literary
exercises on conventional themes, but at their best they are surely both
superb poetry and the result of genuine emotion. Can we doubt that the
poet knew the pitfalls that beset the course of human passion or that he
had faith in the triumphant beauty of love and friendship? Yet the most
splendid of these lyrical declarations of faith add little to what we
knew of the creator of the lovers and friends of the dramas. The
trivialities and the sublimities, the sin and the idealism of the
sonnets coalesce with the emotional effects of the comedies and
tragedies. In forming our impression of the man, whatever we may derive
from the sonnets does not contradict and does not largely affect the
impressions made by the poetry and humanity of the plays. For the
conception which each one forms of Shakespeare the man must be derived
in the main from the impressions of personality implied by the plays.
Such a conception is bound to be individual and without validity that
can rest on proofs, but in the main it has not varied greatly from
individual to individual or from generation to generation. From Jonson
and Dryden to Goethe and Tennyson, there has been no great difference in
the essentials of this estimate of the man.

[Page Heading: Personality of Shakespeare]

If the plays do not throw a clear light on matters of conduct and
exercise of the will, they certainly tell of no lack of self-control
and no weakness or feverishness of action. The traditions of
conviviality and the records of a life of constant industry that secured
wealth and social position are both in accord with the impressions
derived from the plays of an eagerness for experience controlled by a
self-mastery and a serenity of purpose. If one were to search for a
modern writer most like Shakespeare, one would select Scott, rather than
Shelley, or Byron, or Wordsworth. As to the intellectual quality of the
author of the plays, it is clear that he was not a Galileo or a Bacon.
If we judge intellectual power by its creation of system or synthesis,
we shall probably estimate Shakespeare less highly than if we remember
that intellect of the highest order is often displayed by maintaining
openness and largeness of view in face of the solicitations of theory or
prejudice. No one can read the plays in connection with the literature