on to marry, in the jealousy
of another poet, in the railing to or of his false mistress, is the
face or thought of his friend, apparently his patron. No other poet,
it seems to me, could have filled two thousand lines of poetry with
thoughts to, of, or relating to one person of his own sex. Who that
person was critics have not agreed. But that he was a person who was
somehow connected with the life-work of the poet seems beyond
dispute.

Mr. Lee, speaking of the purpose of the Sonnets, at pages 125 and 126,
says:

'Twenty Sonnets, which may for purposes of exposition be entitled
"dedicatory" Sonnets, are addressed to one who is declared
without periphrasis and without disguise to be a patron of the
poet's verse (Nos. XXIII., XXVI., XXXII., XXXVII., XXXVIII.,
LXIX., LXXVII.-LXXXVI., C., CI., CIII., CVI.). In one of
these,--Sonnet LXXVIII.,--Shakespeare asserted:

So oft have I invoked thee for my Muse
And found such fair assistance in my verse
As every alien pen hath got my use
And _under thee their poesy disperse_.

Subsequently he regretfully pointed out how his patron's
readiness to accept the homage of other poets seemed to be
thrusting him from the enviable place of pre-eminence in his
patron's esteem.

Shakespeare's biographer is under an obligation to attempt an
identification of the persons whose relations with the poet are
defined so explicitly. The problem presented by the patron is
simple. Shakespeare states unequivocally that he has no patron
but one.

Sing [sc. O Muse!] to the ear that doth thy lays esteem,
And gives thy pen both skill and argument (C. 7-8).
For to no other pass my verses tend
Than of your _graces and your gifts to tell_ (CIII. 11-12).

The Earl of Southampton, the patron of his narrative poems, is
the only patron of Shakespeare that is known to biographical
research. No contemporary document or tradition gives the
faintest suggestion that Shakespeare was the friend or dependent
of any other man of rank.'

This quotation has been made because it is fair and accurate, because
of the high authority of the book, but principally because it is the
view of one who has no doubt that Shakespeare was the author of the
Shakespearean plays. Research and ingenuity have been taxed to
ascertain who was the unnamed and my