On the first perusal of this address, the import would seem to be, that Mr. W. H. had been the _sole object_ of Shakspeare's poetry, and of the _eternity_ promised by the bard. But a little attention to the language of the times in which it was written, will induce us to correct this conclusion; for as a part of our author's sonnets is most certainly addressed to a female, it is evident that W. H. could not be the _only begetter_ of them in the sense which primarily suggests itself. For the true meaning of the word we are indebted to Mr. Chalmers, who observes, on the authority of Minsheu's Dictionary of 1616, that one sense of the verb _to beget_ is there given to _bring foorth_. "W. H.," he continues, "was the bringer forth of the Sonnets. _Beget_ is derived by Skinner from the A. S. _begettan_, obtinere. Johnson adopts this derivation, and sense: so that _begetter_, in the quaint language of Thorpe, the Bookseller, Pistol, the _ancient_, and such affected persons, signified the _obtainer_; as to _get_, and _getter_, in the present day, means _obtain_, and _obtainer_, or to procure, and the procurer." We must, infer, therefore, from this explanation of the word, that Mr. W. H. had influence enough to _obtain_ the manuscript from the poet, and that he lodged it in Thorpe's hands for the purpose of publication, a favour which the bookseller returned, by wishing him _all happiness and that eternity_ which had been _promised_ by the bard, in such glowing colours, to another, namely, to one of the immediate subjects of his sonnets. That this is the only rational meaning which can be annexed to the word "promised," will appear, when we reflect that for Thorpe to have _wished_ W. H. the _eternity_ which had been promised _him_ by an _ever-living_ poet, would have been not only superfluous, but downright nonsense: the _eternity_ of an _ever-living_ poet must _necessarily ensue_, and was a proper subject of _congratulation_, but not of _wishing_ or of _hope_. It appears also that this dedication was understood in the same light by some of the earlier editors of the sonnets. Cotes, it is true, republished them in 1640 without a commentary; but when Gildon re-printed them in 1710, he gives it as his opinion that they were _all of them in praise of his mistress_; and Dr. Sewell, when he edited them in 1728, had embraced a similar idea, for he tells us, in reference to our author's example, that "A young muse must have _a mistress_, to play off the beginning of fancy; nothing being so apt to elevate the soul to a pitch of poetry, as the passion of love."[59:A]