Of the parts played by Shakespeare himself we have little information. According to a credible tradition, he personated Adam in As You Like If; and Rowe says that he acted "the Ghost in his own Hamlet." John Davies of Here ford says that he "played some kingly parts in sport." In the list of "the principal actors in all these plays," prefixed to the Folio of 1623. his name is placed first, but perhaps only because lie w•as the author of the plays. There is no rea son to suppose that he was ever a 'star' in the histrionic firmament of the period.
If Shakespeare's sonnets are entirely or large ly autobiographical. as the great majority of erit ies and commentators believe, they belong in all probability to this period (1595-1600) in his lit erary and his personal history; and of all the puzzles concerning the man and his works none has been the subject of more speculation and controversy. What we really blow about the Sonnets can be stated in a few sentences. The earliest known 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 (135 and 144) were printed in The Pa8 sionatc Pilgrim, a piratical booklet containing a few other poems known to be Shakespeare's, with some falsely attributed to him. In 1600 the en tire collection of 154 sonnets was published by Thomas Thorpe, with the following dedication: At the end of the volume A Lover's Complaint was printed for the first time. In 1640 the Son nets (except 15, 19, 43, 56. 75. 76, 96, and 126), rearranged under various heads, were reprinted, with the pieces in The Passionate Pilgrim 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 was 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 be 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 couplets, 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, hut 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 getter may mean, in the language of the time, either the person to whom the poems owed their birth and to whom they were originally addressed, or the one who collected and arranged them for Thorpe. Most critics take the word in the former and more familiar sense, but others argue plaus ibly for the second meaning. If the latter view be correct, the identity of "Mr. \V. H." is of slight interest; but if be 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 Lu erece; 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 were not intended for publication. The first 126 (or such of these as are personal) are supposed to be addressed to one man ("Mr. NV. IL"), and the remainder to one woman, the 'dark lady.' witl•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 Sonnets and "Mr. \V. H." has been supposed to represent the poet's Ideal Self, or Ideal Manhood, o• 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 "\V. H." stands for "William Him self :" and the entire series has been supposed to be addressed to Queen Elizabeth.