THE RIVAL POET

Displaying Shakespeare as a Satirist and Proving
the Identity of the Patron and the
Rival of the Sonnets

BY

ARTHUR ACHESON

With a Reprint of Sundry Poetical Pieces by
George Chapman

Bearing on the Subject

JOHN LANE: THE BODLEY HEAD
LONDON AND NEW YORK

PREFACE.

The research of text-students of the works of Shakespeare, undertaken with the object of unveiling the mystery which envelops the poet's life and personality, has added little or nothing of actual proof to the bare outlines which hearsay, tradition, and the spare records of his time have given us. It has, however, resulted in evolving several plausible conjectures, which, if followed and carried to the point of proof, would lend some form and semblance of his personality to these outlines, and materially assist in visualizing for us the actual man. In this class of conjectural knowledge I would place the following questions:

The question of the personal theory of the Sonnets with its attendant questions of order and chronology, and the identity of the three or four figures, the "Patron," "The Rival Poet," "The Dark Lady," and "The Mr. W. H." of the Dedication.

I would also mention in this class the question of the chronology of the plays, for though we have fairly accurate data regarding a few of them, and fairly plausible inferences for nearly the whole of them, we cannot give an actual date for the first production of any one of them.

Lastly in this class, and attendant upon the Sonnet theories, I would mention the question of the intention of the poem called "Willobie His Avisa," regarding Shakespeare and his connections. If any one or two of these things were actually proved, a new keynote to research would be struck, but at present these are all still matters of opinion and dispute. The probability that they would always remain so, has tempted some pseudo-Shakesperians into wild and extravagant inventions, and some honest critics into strange fantasies regarding them. The lengths to which these types of critics have been carried have so reacted upon many others, of a more careful and scientific mind, that they, fearful of being accused of extravagance, have withdrawn behind the barriers of settled fact, and fearfully venture fearful opinions of all that lies beyond their defenses; or else, with the reactionary and stultifying tendency of aging conservatism, sink back upon the conclusions of the older master critics, looking askance, if deigning to look at all, at whatever differs from them. The study of which this book is the result was undertaken altogether for my own pleasure, and in an honest endeavor to get, if possible, some new light upon these debated questions. I had, primarily, no idea or intention of writing upon the subject, but was drawn thereto by a strong conviction of the truth and critical value, as well as a plain cognizance of the originality of most of the theory and proof herein set forth. I have endeavored to tell what I have found as clearly and concisely as possible, and