Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 18.djvu/59

* SHAKESPEARE. 43 SHAKESPEAEE. earliest kno^ii reference to them is in Meres's list of the poet's works already mentioned, in which they are called "his sugred Sonnets among his private friends." The next year (1599) two of them (138 and 144) were printed in The Pas- sionalc Pilgrim, a piratical booklet containing a few other poems knowii to be Shakespeare's, with some falsely attributed to hira. In 1G09 the en- tire collection of 154 sonnets was published by Thomas Thorpe, with the following dedication: TO. THE. OXLIE. BEGETTER. OF. THESE. IXSVIXG. SOXXETS. llr. W. H. A1.L. HAPPIXESSE. AJS'D. THAT. ETEKXITIE. PKOMISED. BY. OVB. EVER-LIVIXG. POET. WISHETH. THE. WELL-WISHING. ADVEXTVRER. IN. SETTING. FORTH. T. T. At the end of the volume A Locer's Complaint was printed for the first time. In 1040 the t<oH- nets (except 18, 19, 43, 56. 75, 76, 96, and 120), rearranged under various heads, were reprinted, with the pieces in The Passionate Pilyrim and other poems. The first complete reprint of the Sonnets, after the edition of 1609, was in the collected edition of Shakespeare's poems, pub- lished by Lintott in 1709. So much for facts about which there is no dispute. The question whether the edition of 1609 w'as authorized or supervised by Shakespeare has been much dis- cussed -. but it appears to have been definitely settled (by Dr. Rolfe) by one little peculiarity in the printing of the 126th Sonnet, if sonnet it he called. It has but twelve lines, and Thorpe (or his editor), assuming that a couplet had been lost, completed the normal fourteen lines by two blank ones inclosed in marks of paren- thesis, thus : Shakespeare could not have done this, and Thorpe would not have done it if he had been in com- munication with Shakespeare or any agent of his. The piece is not an imperfect sonnet of Shakespeare's pattern, but consists of six rhymed eouplets, and the sense is apparently complete. Another important question, not so easily set- tled, is whether the Sonnets, entirely or in part, are autobiographical or are merely 'poetical ex- ercises' dealing with imaginary persons and ex- periences. Editors and critics generally believe that most if not all of the poems, to quote what Wordsworth says of them, "express Shake- speare's own feelings in his own person;" or, as he says in his sonnet on the sonnet, "with this key Shakespeare unlocked his heart." Brown- ing, quoting this, asks: "Did Shakespeare? If so, the less Shakespeare he;" to which Swin- burne replies, "No whit the less like Shake- speare, but undoubtedly the less like Browning." To whom is the dedication addressed and what does it mean? If Shakespeare had nothing to do with Thorpe's venture, the dedication is Thorpe's own. as it purports to be. But in what sense was "Mr. W. H.," whoever he may have been, "the onlie begetter" of the Sonnets? Be- VOL. XVIU.— 4. getter may mean, in the language of the time, either the person to whom the poems owed their birtli and to wliom they were originally addressed, or the one wlio collected and arranged theni for Thorpe. Most critics take the word in the former and more familiar sense, but others argue plaus- ibly for the second moaning. If the latter view be correct, the identity of "Mr. W. H." is of slight interest ; but if he was the poet's patron and involved in the supposed personal revela- tions, the question is very important. The only theories concerning him that are worthy of seri- ous consideration are that he was William Her- bert, Earl of Pembroke, and that he was Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, to whom Shakespeare dedicated Venus and Adonis and Ln- crece; and to Herbert and his brother Philip, Earl of Montgomery, as two patrons of the dramatist, the Folio of 1623 was dedicated by the player edi- tors. The weight of critical authority in favor of the two theories is now (1903) about equal. According to both, the great majority of the Sonnets are personal and ^-ere not intended for publication. The first 126 (or such of these as are personal) are supposed to be addressed to one man ("Mr. W. H."), and the remainder to one woman, the 'dark lady.' with- whom the poet and that man were entangled. This woman can- not be positively identified. Various attempts have been made to find an allegorical, mystical, or philososphical meaning in the Sonnet's; and "Mr. W. H." has been supposed to represent the poet's Ideal Self, or Ideal Manhood, or the Spirit of Beauty, or the Reason, or the Divine Logos; and the 'dark lady' to be Dramatic Art, or the Catholic Church, or the Bride of the Canticles, 'black but comely.' More than one critic has assumed that "W. H." stands for "William Him- self;" and the entire series has been supposed to be addressed to Queen Elizabeth. A Lover's Complaint, published with Sonnets in 1609. is written in the same .seven-lined stanza as Lucrece, but internal evidence indicates that it was later than that poem. The title-page of the 1709 edition of the Poems refers to it as "A Lover's Complaint of His Angry Mistress;" but the 'lover' is a girl who has been betrayed by a deceitful youth. The Phecnix and the' Titrtle is the only other poem by Shakespeare not al- ready mentioned. It riiust have been written be- fore 1601, when it was printed with Chester's Love's Martyr, together with poems by Marston, Chapman, and Ben Jonson. After the plays already considered we come to a group of comedies so called, that are comedies only in name, or because they have not a tragical ending. They are All's Well that Ends Well, Measure for Measure, and Troihis and Cressida — "one earnest, another dark and severe, the last bitter and ironical" (Dowden). f All's Well inn later form of the Love's Labour's Won in Meres's list of 1598, the revision was probably made in 1601. Measure for Measure is supposed to have been written in 1603 or early in 1604. Troilus and Cressida. first published in 1609. may have been written about the same time, and revised between 1606 and 1609. These plays appear to form a natural group, and indicate that Shake- speare's interest was changing from comedy to tragedy, but it is not necessary to assume that they were written or revised in immediate suc- cession and apart from other work. Although in