-

would be a perfectly fair argument; though I should say that it does not answer to the impression that the terms of the dedication leave on one's mind. The alternative theory to that of Thorpe's ignorance would be that he suppressed the title by way of disguise. This also is a fairly legitimate supposition under the circumstances. Mr. Lee argues that for a publisher to have addressed any peer as plain "Mister" would have been defamation and a Star Chamber matter, as it well might if the publisher intended an insult. But in any case the peer would have to set the Star Chamber in motion; and there might be good reasons for not doing so. If Thorpe had obtained permission to dedicate the Sonnets to Pembroke on condition that his incognito was respected, a somewhat difficult supposition, — then it is hard to say that "Mr. W. H." was an impossible way of referring to him; because, though by courtesy a peer, Herbert was legally a commoner until he succeeded to the earldom in 1601. Those who on the ground of this derogation from Herbert's dignity have denied the possibility of his being the "begetter" of the sonnets have perhaps not always sufficiently considered the impossibility of dedicating them "To the Right Honourable William, Earle of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlaine to His Majestie, one of his most honourable Privie Counsell, and Knight of the most noble order of the Garter." Had Thorpe ventured upon such a dedication as that, I can conceive the Star Chamber taking action of its own accord. Still, when special pleading has done its. utmost, I am bound to confess that I am not convinced. There is a smug tone about the dedication which suggests that while Mr. W. H. was far above Thorpe's own social position, he was yet something less than so magnificent a personage as the Earl of Pembroke.

But not content with identifying the poet's friend, the Pembroke party are determined to find a counterpart in real

life to the "dark lady" who figures so ominously in the later sonnets. The number of brunettes in the capital at any time is legion, and the sonnets supply no possible clue by which the particular person can be identified. The attempt, therefore, to fix upon some one with whom Pembroke is known to have had relations is merely gratuitous; and it rejoices the heart of any sane spectator to learn that this supposed "dark lady," Mistress Mary Fitton, turns out, when her portraits are examined, to have been conspicuously fair.1

VII. THE FRIEND: MR. WILLIAM HUGHES, ETC.

Tyrwhitt was the first critic who suggested that Mr. W. H. might be Mr. William Hughes. He based his conjecture on the seventh line of Sonnet 20, which in the original edition is printed as follows:

A man in hew all Hews in his controwling.

As the word stands on the page in the Quarto it certainly looks momentous; for there is no other word in italics between the 5th sonnet and the 53d. But it must be noted that what chiefly impresses the modern reader is the capital letter with the italics; and this is found with every word printed in italics throughout the sonnets, so that a capital letter to a reader of the Quarto would not be in the least suggestive of a proper name as it is to us. Moreover, the line contains no pun, such as we have upon the name "Will" in Sonnet 135, etc. Mr. Wyndham, although he does not advocate the Hughes theory, considers that the italic type is not accidental. 'Of Hews," he says, "it is enough to say here, that if its capital and italics be a freak

1 Gossip from a Muniment Room, by Lady Newdigate-Newdegate, p. 25. See also Lee, Life of Shakespeare, p. 415.

of the printer, they constitute the only freak of that kind in the whole edition of 1609." But there is another in Sonnet 104, where "autumn is in italic type, and both "spring" and "winter" in roman.

The Hughes theory, however, has this advantage over some others, that if it cannot be proved, neither can it be disproved. It is not to the point to say with Mr. Lee (p. 93, n.) that "no known contemporary of the name, either in age or position in life, bears any resemblance to the young man who is addressed by Shakespeare in his sonnets." For why should Mr. W. H. have been a "known" contemporary? People are not even now chronicled in dictionaries of biography simply for their good looks. We cannot deny that there may have been a young gentleman of family and fortune called William Hughes, with a taste for the theatre and the flattery of men of genius, whose handsome face and gentle manners won the poet's affection. A modern variety of the Hughes theory which makes him a boy actor is put out of court by the 37th sonnet, and still more by those which disparage the player's calling.

Of other suggestions that have been made, it is unnecessary to do more than record one or two. Mr. W. C. Hazlitt (Shakespear, 1902) discovered a Mr. William Hammond to whom Middleton dedicated one of his plays, but nothing more is known of him. Mrs. C. C. Stopes divides het conjecture between William Hunnis, a gentleman of Queen Elizabeth's chapel royal, who died in 1597, and some other William Herbert, not the Earl of Pembroke. Mr. Fleay suggests William Hervey, the stepfather of Lord Southampton (Chronicle of the English Drama, II, 212). Trahit sua quemque voluptas.

VIII. THE RIVAL POET

The concluding couplet of Sonnet 83 says:

sonnets.

There lives more life in one of your fair eyes

Than both your poets can in praise devise.

Cer

Of these poets Shakespeare is one; who is the other? tain characteristics of this rival are plainly marked in the He is "learned" compared with Shakespeare (78.7), which means probably that he had been bred at a university; he has "grace" (78. 8); and his writing is "polished" (85.8); one sonnet speaks of his "precious phrase by all the Muses filed" (85.4), another, somewhat inconsistently, of "the proud full sail of his great verse (86. 1). The first impulse of a reader is to say that the poet must be Marlowe; but Marlowe was killed in May, 1593. The first quatrain of Sonnet 78 implies that the sonnets in this section were far from being the first written; and the section immediately preceding has close affinities with Hamlet; so that on the score of date alone we can reject Marlowe's candidature. Moreover, it seems to be implied (though this is doubtful) by the words "Some fresher stamp of the time-bettering days" in Sonnet 82. 8 that the rival poet is a younger man than Shakespeare. There is another characteristic indicated in Sonnet 80 which ought to help in determining him. He is said to have dealings with familiar spirits. Professor Minto was of opinion that this reference decided the question in favour of George Chapman, who as a scholar and a translator of Homer's Iliad into swelling Alexandrines was otherwise a suitable candidate. He quotes the following passage from the Dedication to The Shadow of Night, a poem published in 1594.

Now what a supererogation in wit this is, to think Skill so mightily pierced with their loves that she should show them her secrets, when she will scarcely be looked upon by others but with invocation, fasting, watching, yea, not without having drops of their souls, like a heavenly familiar.

Professor Dowden appears to be convinced by this passage. "Chapman," he says, "was preeminently the poet of Night." And he calls attention to the fact that in the Tears of Peace (1609) he represents himself as being visited and inspired by Homer. It is possible to suppose that Chapman had made some boast of his midnight inspirations in a form closer to the phrasing of the 82d sonnet and nearer to the time at which the Sonnets were written, perhaps in some sonnet which Shakespeare had seen. Those who hold Chapman to be the rival poet may like to note that in 1598 he wrote a poem to that celebrated Doctor Harriot1 of whom Marlowe had said in his "atheistical" way that he could juggle better than Moses. It is also noteworthy that although Chapman was an older man than Shakespeare and might on this score seem disqualified for the post of rival, his novel undertaking of a rhymed version of Homer, the first instalment of which appeared in 1598, might satisfy the reference in Sonnet 82. 8, especially in its connection with the mention of "knowledge" in the fifth line. But was Chapman the sort of man to write affectionate sonnets to a youth? The sonnets which he did write, "a coronet for his Mistress Philosophy," may well raise a doubt.

James Boaden, the dramatist, who in some papers contributed to the Gentleman's Magazine in 1832 first put forward the theory that "Mr. W. H." was William Herbert, argued also that the rival poet must be Samuel Daniel. His arguments are (1) that Daniel was a protégé of the Pembroke family, (2) that they were patrons of Dr. Dee the astrologer, (3) and that Daniel dedicated to William Herbert his Defence of Ryme. Against which arguments it is easy to urge (1) that as Daniel had been tutor to William Herbert, Shakespeare could have no ground for resenting their relations;

1" To my admired and soul-loved friend, master of all essential and true knowledge, M. Harriots"; a poem in couplets, appended to Achilles' Shield.