7 CHAPTER IV. SHAKESPEARE AND SOUTHAMPTON. THE suggestion has been made that Shakespeare's friend in the Sonnets, Mr. W. H., was the Earl of Southampton, the patron to whom the poet had dedicated his Venus and Adonis and Lucrece.1 But the difficulties which stand in the way of our accepting this suggestion are altogether insuperable. It is scarcely to be doubted that the W. of W. H. represents William. The evidence of the punning Sonnets, 135, 136, 143, is not easily to be set aside: the "Will" of these Sonnets is too emphatic. Southampton's name, however, was not William, but Henry. If, however, we could pass by this not inconsiderable difficulty, and could go so far as to suppose that, for the purpose of disguise, the order of the initials was inverted, and that W. H. really represents H. W., that is, Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, still the chronological results we have already attained will compel us altogether to reject the suggestion. Shakespeare's acquaintance with Lord Southampton dates, not from 1598, but at least from 1593, the date of the Venus and Adonis, when Southampton was nineteen. Then in 1601, our date for Sonnets 100 to 126, Southampton would be quite past the age when he could be addressed as "lovely boy" (126), or when he would feel complimented by being told that his "sweet self" resembled "cherubins" (114). It would be superfluous, therefore, to attempt to show the inapplicability to Southampton of the 1 N. Drake, Shakespeare and his Times, 1817. first seventeen Sonnets and of various other particulars, including that personal beauty which Shakespeare so highly extolled. We must conclude, then, that Mr. W. H. was certainly not the Earl of Southampton. There is, however, in relation to Southampton, another matter which must not be passed over. We have seen strong grounds for believing that the 107th and 124th Sonnets allude to the rebellion of the Earl of Essex, and to the downfall of that nobleman and his companions (p. 24). This downfall Shakespeare seems to have regarded, not with regret, or even indifference, but with something rather of satisfaction. And yet Southampton, to whom he had dedicated his two poems, had been a prominent member of the party of Essex. Southampton, it is true, had not been put to death, but he was in prison, and, in the spring of 1601, the ultimate issue was still uncertain. Are we to charge Shakespeare with ingratitude? There can scarcely be a doubt that the dedication of the Venus and Adonis was acknowledged by a present of greater or less value. We cannot speak so confidently with regard to the Lucrece. It has been said that the dedication to the Lucrece was "written, not in terms of timid appeal, like the earlier dedication, but in words of strong and confident affection.” 1 In the dedication to the Venus and Adonis Shakespeare had said, "I know not how I shall offend in dedicating my vnpolisht lines to your Lordship;" but he prefaces the Lucrece with the declaration, "The loue I dedicate to your Lordship is without end whereof this Pamphlet without beginning is but a superfluous Moity. The warrant I haue of your Honourable disposition, not the worth of my vntutord Lines makes it assured of acceptance. What I haue done is yours, what I haue to doe is yours; being part in all I haue, deuoted yours. Were my worth greater, my duety would shew greater, meane time, as it is, it is bound to your 1 Dowden, Shakespeare Primer, p. 23. Lordship; to whom I wish long life still lengthened with all happinesse." It is thus seen that, in the first dedication, Shakespeare had expressed doubt as to the reception he might meet with; in the second he dedicates to Southampton a "love without end.” But still there is in the dedication to Lucrece language not at all suggestive of a close friendship. If Shakespeare had been on terms of intimacy with his patron, he would hardly have said of his poem, "The warrant I have of your honourable disposition makes it assured of acceptance." This is cold indeed as compared with the language addressed to Mr. W. H. in the Sonnets. We may infer, perhaps, that the dedication to Lucrece implies on the whole a desire for closer relations. But did Southampton respond to the appeal? We have no evidence that he did. The usual opinion, however, would seem to be that Southampton was pre-eminently the friend and patron of Shakespeare. But the editors of the Folio of 1623 can scarcely have taken this view. Southampton was still alive when that volume was issued; but the editors pass him over without mention, and anxious "to keep the memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive as was our Shakespeare," and "to procure his orphans guardians," they dedicate the book to the brothers, the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery. This fact is very important, and it not unnaturally suggests a possible rupture or estrangement between the poet and his first patron. Shakespeare's sensitive soul may have been wounded by a real or fancied slight. Perhaps, through inadvertence, he had been kept waiting in an ante-chamber in a manner similar to that which so seriously provoked Dr. Johnson's anger. But whatever may have been the cause, there is reason to believe that, as early as 1601, Shakespeare had become alienated from Southampton. Now if the view of Sonnet 124 already given (p. 25) is correct, and if, when Shakespeare speaks of those who "have lived for crime" and yet "die for goodness," he alludes to Essex and his companions, it would not be unlikely that we should find, in close connection, some allusion to Southampton and the relations which he had sustained to Shakespeare. Sonnet 124 we have placed in 1601. At this time Southampton was suffering imprisonment as a convicted rebel. It is, therefore, in the nature of things likely enough that there would be persons very willing to remind Shakespeare of the "love without end" which he had proffered to Southampton in the widelycirculated dedication to Lucrece. This would be the more likely if Shakespeare now professed adherence to the Court party and strong aversion to the conspiracy and the conspirators. Such persons would very probably hint that Shakespeare was unfaithful, and that he had not " a true soul." Thus the words "informer" and ". a true soul" of the last line but one in Sonnet 125 admit of easy explanation : "Hence, thou suborn'd informer! a true soul, When most impeach'd, stands least in thy control." And what precedes (expressed with Shakespeare's usual love of metaphor) is in complete accordance with that view of Shakespeare's relations to his first patron which I have suggested: 1 It must be mentioned here that no relations of friendship, or intimacy of any sort whatever, between Shakespeare and Essex are to be inferred from what is said concerning the latter in the chorus preceding Act v. of Henry V. : "As by a lower but by loving likelihood, Were now the general of our gracious empress (As in good time he may), from Ireland coming, How many would the peaceful city quit, To welcome him? much more, and much more cause, Did they this Harry." The last words are to be noted, as well as the hatred for rebellion which Shakespeare expresses. And if Essex himself turned rebel, it is not difficult to surmise the fate which Shakespeare would desire for him. "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy, Which proves more short than waste or ruining." On a careful consideration of the context it may be seen that Shakespeare thus implicitly denies that he had been unfaithful. He had never been on terms of close intimacy with Essex or Southampton. He had merely "borne the canopy," as in a public pageant, "honouring the outward with his extern." And the same thing also is implied in the lines which follow, and which speak of the mere "gazing" of the "dwellers on form and favour." Moreover, bearing in mind the dedication to the Lucrece, with its "love without end," we need have no difficulty in understanding what is meant by the "eternity which proves more short than waste or ruining." In 1601 but seven years had elapsed since that dedication was published. Editors have been wont to alter in the Sonnet "proves" into "prove." But the singular "proves," as given in the First Quarto, is certainly correct. This becomes clear when we see the meaning. Shakespeare had not expected that a breach between Southampton and himself would ever occur, but the event had shown how erroneous was his anticipation. The "love without end" had proved of briefer duration than even seven years. As to the plural "great bases,” there is very probably an allusion to the two poems dedicated to Southampton.1 1 It is not by any means denied that, with an antecedent plural noun, Shakespeare employs after the relative a verb ending in s, as also after a plural nominative, though in these cases editors have not uncommonly altered the verb (see Abbott, Shakesp. Gram., §§ 247, 333). In Sonnet 125 the verb has evidently been changed to bring it into apparent agreement with "great bases." But, apart from grammatical considerations, we can scarcely regard Shakespeare as intending that he had laid "great bases," which bases, however, had proved too short, shorter than waste or ruining." 66 |