, 1874-05-31

Il NE" fUh1hA41 OE odAhoEEAd6.
Tho attempts Of the Shakspearean critics to
attribute to tie bard certain personal defects are
growing to DO very curious, and, it they are per-
sisted in much longer, will make tho great
dr.matist susus nature, quite As unique and
remarkable as Ca1iban OF Polyphemus. Capell
has made uso Of two OF the sonneta to show
that Shakespeare was lame. He writes, in 8on-
net 81:
Sol, 1nsde lame by fortunes dearest spite, etc.
And again, in Sonnet SO:
speak Of my 1ameness and straight will halt etc.
No less than four eminent critics-Capen,
Malone, Harness, and Thomas-have applied
these lines to physical defect in shakspearec
legs. Thus two OF the sonnets make him lame.
Our readers will remember that the Becker
mask, over which MI. Page, the artist, has made
so much ado, represents Shakespeare as having
an ugly cash over the left eye, and, adopting
this as the TRUTH he has painted T. portrait which
represents the poet with scar ACROSS the fore
head. Thus far ne have Shakespeare lame and
SCARED, which is sufficient Of itself to give
the impression that he may, at some period OF
his life, have INDUCED in prize-dght. But If
We go thus far We may certainly go still farther
A correspondent Of the american Btb!iopolise
improves upon the hints already furnished and
quotes line in Sonnet 80:
Join With the spite Of fortune make me bow.
It appears, then, that by " fortunes dearest
spite II he was q hunchback, and by fortunes
dearest epto" he hmped- We hare thus got far
enough with the picture to know that Shakespeare
was la1ne SCARED. and hunchbacked, bearing, In
fact. = very close resemblance to his own Richard
III. But We can go yet further. Tho picture is
BY no maans complete. In Sonnet Is. be sayB:
That this huge state presente.h nongnt but shows.
This evidently indicates that Shakespeare not
only was large, but was monstrously large and
fat, or he would never have used the adjective
huge" So ne have Shakespeare lame, and
SCARED, and hunchbackod, and monstSously fat.
In Sonnet AZ, he writes:
Save that my soul's imaginary sight
Presents thy shadow to my sight1ess view.
Il bis view WAS aightless, Of course the poor
creature MAS blind. Lame, SCARED. hunchback-
ed moustrouely fat, and blind That au this
might have been true is confirmed by two unea
in Sonnet 29:
When in disgrace with fortune and mems eyes
all alone beweep my outcast stato
Those lines also convey suspicion that he may
have been pariah, beggar, OF tramp. lins
in Sonnet 81 confirms the suspicion:
To dry tho rain On my sto,u-beaten face.
Thus far re have satisfactorily established
the divine William to havo been lame, Scared
hunchbacked, monst1ousy fat, blind, and 3
OF course would give him worry rusty CON-
plo1ion, somewhat resembling An old piece of
parchment. But there are other touches to this
lovely picture. In Sonnet A, he writes:
II tho dull substance Of my flesh we're thought.
What else can 'duu substance" mean than
slowness, grossncss, and laziness7 The saddest
il yot to come. In Sonnet 83, he says:
This silence for my sin you did inputs
Which shsn be most my glory, being dumb!
This is pointblank. categorical e7idence that
Shakespeare Was not only blind, bat also speech |
less In Sonnet ITO, he says:
Alas 'tis true, I have gone hers and there
And made myself motley TO the view. |
This shows uumistakably that he WAS clown |
In Sonnet III, he writes:
Whilst, like willing patient, will drink
Potions Of eysel. '9ainat my strong Infection.
Any pbyscian will inform US that bilious peo-
pie crave acids, and, il Shakespeare Was in the
habit Of drinking 'seysell," which is vinegar, it
.bors TINT he must have been extremely bilious
In Sonnet 147, be says:
Past cure All, now reason IS past cure
And frantic mad, with erermore unrest
This adds the finishing touch to the sad pic
ture and presents the gentle Shakespeare to our
view Is imping. SCARED, hunchbacked, bilious,
monstrously fat blind, rusty-complexionod,
gross, lazy dumb, and insane clawnl And. II al