Messrs. Boaden, Brown, and Bright, consider that they were addressed to William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, and that they too truly indicate a loose moral character in Shakespere, and a still more licentious disposition in the Earl. Other ideas have been freely and frequently expressed regarding them, until at length a perfect conflict of hypotheses has introduced into our literature a controversy almost as keenly contested, and as insoluble, as that of the "Junius Letters." The singular dedication prefixed - by Thomas Thorpe, the proprietor of the copyright-to the small quarto in which, in 1609, they first appeared in a collected form, is still an unread riddle. It is literally as follows, viz. :—

66

Does it signify inspirer or collector?

What is meant by begetter? Hallam says, that by begetter we can only understand the cause of their being written ;" and he infers that "this mysterious Mr. W. H. must be presumed to be the idolized friend of Shakespere.” Boswell, on the other hand, asserts that "the begetter is merely the person who gets or preserves a thing." Dr. Johnson agrees with this, as Chalmers remarks: W. H. was the bringer forth of the the sonnets. Beget is derived by Skinner from the Anglo-Saxon begettan obtinere. Johnson adopts this derivation and sense."

66

If we believe that begetter signifies inspirer, as Mr. W. H. is "the only begetter," we must be prepared to maintain that the sonnets are all addressed to, or at least were produced for, a man ; and then the question will arise, Who was Mr. W. H.? Farmer proposes William Hart, nephew of the poet, his sister Joan's son; but he was baptized 28th August, 1600; and Meres speaks of

Shakespere's "sugred sonnets among his private friends," in 1598, two years before Hart's birth, who was only nine at the date of their publication. This hypothesis is therefore untenable. Tyrwhitt conjectures William Hughes, or Hews,—but this is only a wild and random guess, suggested by the occurrence of a capital letter in the line,

"A man in hue, all Hews in his controlling;"

and it leads us to nothing beyond the mere name. Drake, from verbal similarities between the dedications of his former poems to Lord Southampton, regards it as possible that he was the man. Southampton's own name was Henry Wriothesley, and he succeeded his father in his eighth year (1581). He could scarcely be designated Mr. W. H., even if his initials had been reversed. A like objection is fatal to the suggestion of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, who had been an earl nine years prior to the publication of the work, unless we are to regard Mr. as a mere bookseller's blind, and if we do-cui bono? Would not the book have sold better if dedicated to a Lord? even although he were “the Lord knows who!" Chalmers' idea that they were addressed to Queen Elizabeth, and that the masculine gender is used to denote her sovereignty, seems to be quite outré had Elizabeth a liaison with Shakespere? were there really gentle passages between them?— tradition, if not scandal, would scarcely have failed to get hold of a secret so sweet as that. The difficulty of finding any one inspirer, i. e., “only begetter," is insurmountable; and upon that account, we incline to accept the signification of obtainer, collector—we might almost say, editor.

With this theory, these previous difficulties vanish; but we get amongst new ones. We cannot suppose any of the above-mentioned personages to be the editors of these sonnets, and so we must seek elsewhere.

The necessities of the case require that we should fix upon an intimate of Shakespere's. We can scarcely fancy that any person could gather or collect, from "his private friends," "Shakespere's Sonnets" during his lifetime, and for publication, without some direct or indirect help or permission from himself. Such proceeding would have been difficult, easily restrained, readily betrayed, and most probably opposed, by the parties having possession of MS. and autograph copies. If we suppose Shakespere's sanction, we

must presume his help; or if his help, his sanction. The difficulty appears to be impossibility, without either or both. To find "private friends," perhaps many, willing to give up unique possessions,-secret-telling ones, in some cases, too-to any one not authorized by friendship and sanction, would not be easy. Even to discover the possessors, without having influence to solicit them, would be a work of no ordinary awkwardness. Some interest, too, must have been felt by the collector in bringing the publication out. Who would labour for another man's honour-himself being anonymous—without some liking for the man, or some powerful bribe for the performance of the work? Then, again, he must have had some literary or other connection with the booksellers. If we were to suppose the Mr. W. H. to be William Hathaway, born November 30th, 1578, brother-in-law of William Shakespere, we might hit near the mark. In the will of Shakespere, we find no disposition of his theatrical property. Had he sold it, or had he put it in the hands of the Hathaways to manage, for behoof of themselves and his wife, in addition to her dower? Richard Hathaway became a dramatist during Shakespere's lifetime,—probably induced by his example, if not by his help ;-and William, who in 1647, in his 69th year, was designated "William Hathaway, of Westonupon-Avon, in the county of Gloucester, yeoman," would appear to have had some helping hand extended to him also. He was probably named after Shakespere, who was in his fifteenth year at his birth-time, and he may have been, therefore, his favourite. If, about 1609, Shakespere gave up his active theatrical management, and "sought his native village, to end his days in peace," he may have wished to give his brother-in-law a start; and not desiring to appear avaricious of fame, yet wishful that his Sonnets might be published as copesmates to those of Spenser, Surrey, Daniel, Drayton, Drummond, &c., he might have given them to him, collectedly, to make the best he could out of the booksellers for them; and thus he might become "the only begetter."

In the birth-year of Milton, 1609, Shakespere's Sonnets appeared, -not over carefully collated, for that would have indicated or revealed his own hand. It is not likely that Shakespere would allow any trading bookseller to enrich himself by the use of his name; but it is likely he might wish to serve a friend. It is not likely that any person could have collected the whole 154 sonnets

from Shakespere's private friends, but it is likely that he would have copies, and could furnish them to a friend. It is not likely that, during his lifetime, any mere stranger could obtain and dispose of the private and confidential effusions of Shakespere's muse; but it is likely that, with his sanction, and by his help, a friend might superintend an edition. The Hathaways, though not mentioned in Shakespere's will, yet retained friendly relations with his family, and even agreed to the limitation of the area of the inheritance of the Shakespere property, in 1647. If the foregoing guess be regarded as correct, then we may know who the Mr. W. H., the only begetter" of the Sonnets, was, and may find in that hypothesis another instance of the kindly feeling of gentle William Shakespere.

66

66

Shakespere's mastery over, and love of, the sonnet form of poesy may be noticed in "Love's Labour Lost," the epilogues to "Henry V.," "Henry VIII.," and the prologue to Romeo and Juliet," besides those sonnets in the 'Passionate Pilgrim," which was published by Jaggard, a piratical bookseller, in 1599, the year after Meres had spoken of the " sugred sonnets," and apparently to gratify the curiosity excited about them, and to profit by it.

We do not believe in the continuity of the Sonnets; in the oneness of their object, i. e., inspirer, or in the entirely autobiographical theory. Many, we believe, were addressed to Anne Hathaway, as bride and wife; several to his daughter [e. g., 62]; some to Queen Elizabeth [e. g., 83-86, and 106]; one, at least, to his son Hamnet [108]; a few to, or for, noble and beloved friends; and many, we think, are early exercises in the concetti then fashionable, or various forms of pleasing ideas. A few do possess a tone of soliloquy, that makes them seem quite autobiographical.

NOTE I.-On "Pericles."

In 1630, Owen Feltham, in an answer to Ben Jonson's ode, "Come, Leave the Loathed Stage," &c., speaks of his verbal jests as things that

"Do throw a stain

Through all the unlikely plot, and do displease

As deep as Pericles."

NOTE II.-On the Learning of Shakespere.

On "the Learning of Shakespere," Dr. Maginn has the following

acute remarks in a paper on "Farmer's Essay," in Fraser's Magazine, September, 1839:

"Ben Jonson knew Shakspeare intimately, and was in every way qualified to offer an opinion on his learning. All the silly surmises of his hostilities or jealousy towards Shakspeare, with which Steevens and other critics of the same calibre cram their notes, have been demonstrated to be mere trash, undeserving of a moment's notice. Ben had a warm-hearted affection, a deeply-grateful feeling, and a profound admiration for Shakspeare, which he displayed during the life, and after the death, of his illustrious friend. It is a most unfair and unjust calumny on so eminent an ornament of our literature, or any literature, as Ben Jonson, to assert or insinuate the contrary. Jealousy or envy could have had no part in his appreciation of Shakspeare's learning; and this dictum proves nothing until we can determine what is the quantity of either which Ben Jonson would have characterized as much Latin or Greek. So practised and exact a scholar would estimate but cheaply anything short of a very considerable quantity of both. . . In like manner Jonson, in this oft-quoted line [And though thou hadst small Latin and lesse Greeke], only meant to say that Shakspeare's acquirements in the learned languages were small in comparison with those of professed scholars of scholastic fame. But surely it is not necessary to consider, that because Shakspeare was not as erudite as Casaubon, he must be set down as totally ignorant. In fact, we ought to quote Jonson as an authority on the side opposed to that espoused by Farmer, for the possession of any Greek knowledge at all in the days of Elizabeth, argues a very respectable knowledge of Latin; because at that time it was only through Latin, and by means of no small acquaintance with its literature, the Greek language could, be it ever so slightly, studied."

NOTE III.-Allusion to Shakespere's Success.

The following extract is from a tract of date 1605-6, entitled, "Ratseis Ghost." In an advice to the head player of a strolling company to go to London, Ratsey (who was a highwayman, and was executed at Bedford in March, 1605) says:

"There thou shall learn to be frugal (for players were never so thrifty as they are now about London); and to feed upon all men, to let none feed upon thee, to make thy hand a stranger to thy pocket, thy heart slow to perform thy tongue's promise, and when thou feelest thy purse well lined buy thee some place of lordship in the country, that, growing weary of playing, thy money may then bring thee to dignity and reputation, then thou needest care for no man; no, not for them that before made thee proud with speaking their words on the stage.' 'Sir, I thank you,' quoth the player, for this good council. I promise you I will make use of it, for I have heard, indeed, of some that have gone to London very meanly, and have come in time to be exceeding wealthy.'"