Are Shakespeare’s Sonnets Autobiographical? Essay

Are the Sonnets, wholly or in part, autobiographical, or are they unsulliedly poetical exercises dealing with imaginary somebodys and experiences? This is the question to which solely others relating to the poems are secondary and subordinate.For myself, I firmly believe that the great legal age of the Sonnets, to quote what Wordsworth says of them, express Shakespeares own feelings in his own person or, as he says in his sonnet on the sonnet, with this alike(p) discover Shakespeare unlocked his heart. Browning, quoting this, asks Did Shakespeare? If so, the less Shakespeare he to which Swinburne replies, No whit the less uniform Shakespeare, however undoubtedly the less like Browning.The theory that the Sonnets are mere exercises of fancy, the free outcome of a poetic imagination, as Delius phrases it, is low-cal and specious at first, but lands us at last among worse perplexities than it evades. That Shakespeare, for example, should hold open seventeen sonnets urging a y oung man to marry and carry on his family is strange enough, but that he should select such(prenominal) a origin as the fictitious basis for seventeen sonnets is stranger yet and the same may be said of the story or stories apparently inherent other of the poems. Some connoisseurs, indeed, who take them to be thus artificially inspired, pass been compelled to esteem them as satirical intended to ridicule the sonneteers of the clock, especially Drayton and Sir whoremaster Davies of Hereford.Others, like Professor Minto, who believe the first 126 to be in the flesh(predicate), regard the ease as exercises of skill, undertaken in a spirit of wanton defiance and mockery of commonplace. The poems, to quote Dowden, are in the taste of the time less debauched and less full of conceits than m whatsoever other Elizabethan collections, more than fantastic by exquisite imagination and all that betokens genuine feeling. . . . All that is unusual or contorted or conceited in them c an be paralleled from passages of early plays of Shakespeare, such as Romeo and Juliet, and the Two Gentlemen of Verona, where assuredly no satirical intention is discover adapted.If the Sonnets were mostly written sooner 1598 when Meres refers to them, or 1599 when Jaggard printed two of them, or in 1593 and 1594, as Sidney downwind assumes, and if most of them, as the same critic believes, were little more than professional trials of skill, often of superlative merit, to which the poet deemed himself challenged by the efforts of modern practiti unmatchablers, it is passing strange that Shakespeare should not engage published them ten or fifteen years before they were brought out by the pirate Thorpe. He must possess written them for publication if that was their character, and the extraordinary ordinaryity of his earlier poems would project assured them a favourable reception with the public.His fellow-townsman and friend, Richard Field, who had published the genus Venus an d genus Adonis in 1593 and the Lucrece in 1594, and who must choose known of the circulation of the sonnets in manuscript, would cede urged him to publish them or, if the author had declined to arrest them printed, some pirate, like Jaggard or Thorpe, would puddle done it long before 1609. Mr. Lee tells us that Sidney, Watson, Daniel, and Constable circulated their sonnets for a time in manuscript, but he tells us also that the pirates mostly got hold of them and published them within a few years if the authors did not do it. But the history of The Passionate Pilgrim rises that it was not so easy to obtain copies of Shakespeares sonnets for publication.It was the success of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece (the fourth random variable of the former being issued in 1599, and the second of the latter in 1598) which prompted Jaggard to frame The Passionate Pilgrim in 1599 and it is a significant fact that he was able to rake together only ten poems which can possibly be Shakespeares , and three of these were from Loves Labours Lost, which had been published in 1598. To these ten pieces he added ten others (eleven, as ordinarily printed) which he freshly called Shakespeares, though we know that most of them were stolen and can trace some of them to the authors.His obtain bears evidence in its very make-up that he was hard pushed to conduct the pages and give the purchaser a tolerable sixpence-worth. The matter is printed on but one side of the leaf, and is further spun out by putting a head-piece and tail-piece on every page, so that a dozen lines of text sandwiched between these convenient pictorial devices make as fair a come on as double the quantity would ordinarily present.Note, however, that, with all his pickings and stealings, Jaggard managed to watertight but two of the sonnets, though a considerable number of them were in all probability in existence among the authors sequestered friends, as Meres express it a year before. The pirate Newman, in 1591, was able to print one hundred and eight sonnets by Sidney which had been circulated in manuscript, and to add to them twenty-eight by Daniel without the authors knowledge and sonnets by Watson and Constable, as Mr. Lee tells us, were besides circulated and pirated. How, then, are we to explain the fact that Jaggard could obtain only two of Shakespeares sonnets, five years or more later they had been circulating among his friends ? Is it not evident that the poems must have been carefully guarded by these friends on account of their personal and private character?A dozen more of those sonnets would have filled out Jaggards larcenous bundle of verse, and have obviated the necessity of pilfering from Barnfield, Griffin, Marlowe, and the rest but at the time they were in such close confidential keeping that he could get no copies of them. In the course of years they were shown to a big and larger number of private friends, and with the multiplication of copies the chances of their getting outside of that confidential circle were proportionally incrementd. We call for not be surprised, then, that a decade later somebody had succeeded in obtaining copies of them all, and sold the collection to Thorpe.Even if we suppose that the Sonnets had been impersonal, and that Shakespeare for some reason that we cannot understand had wished to withhold them from the press, we may be sure that he could not have done it in that day of imperfect copyright restrictions. Nothing could have kept a hundred and fifty poems by so popular an author out of print if there had not been strong personal reasons for maintaining their privacy. At least seven editions of the Venus and Adonis and four of the Lucrece appeared before Thorpe was able to secure copy for his edition of the Sonnets.If, as Mr. Lee asserts, Southampton was the friend to whom twenty that may be called dedicatory sonnets (23, 26, 32, 37, 38, 69, 77-86, 100, 101, 103, and 106) are addressed, it is all the mor e rum that Shakespeare should not have published them, or, if he hesitated to do it, that his noble athletic supporter should not have urged it. He had already dedicated both the Venus and Adonis and the Lucrece to Southampton and Mr. Lee says that three of the twenty dedicatory sonnets 26, 32, 38 merely translate into the language of poetry the expressions of devotion which had already done duty in the dedicatory epistle in verse that precedes Lucrece. Other sonnet-sequences of the time (including the four mentioned by Mr. Lee as pirated while circulated in manuscript, except Sidneys, which were not thus published until after his death) were brought out by their authors, with dedications to noble lords or ladies. Shakespeares Sonnets, so out-of-the-way(prenominal) as I am aware, are the only exception to the rule.Mr. Lee himself admits that at a first glance a far larger proportion of Shakespeares sonnets give the reader the illusion of personal confessions than those of any co ntemporary and elsewhere he recognizes in them more intensity than appears in the earlier poems except in occasional utterances of Lucrece but, for all that, he would have us believe that they are not personal, and that their superior and more evenly sustained energy is to be attributed, not to the accession of power that comes with increase of years, but to the innate principles of the poetic form, and to metrical exigencies which impelled the sonneteer to aim at a uniform condensation of thought and language. I cannot help agreeing with those who regard their personal character as no illusion, and who believe that they clearly show the increase of power which comes with years, their true date probably being 1597-98 quite an than 1593-94.For myself, I could as soon believe the penitential psalms of David to be purely rhetorical and fictitious as the 129th Sonnet, than which no more penitent utterance was ever wrung from a soul that had tasted the ashes to which the Sodom-apples o f illicit love are turned in the end. Have we there nothing but the admirable fooling of the actor masquerading in the garb of the penitent, or the satirist mimicking the conceits and affectations of the sonneteers of the time? If this is supposed to be the counterfeit of feeling, I can only cry (out) with Leonato in Much Ado, O God Counterfeit There was never counterfeit of passion came so near the life of passion