The ONLIE BEGETTER

[Harry]

This is a more general sonnet-related topic, so I thought it might be worth its own thread.

Most Shakespeare fans will be familiar with Thomas Thorpe's dedication in the 1609 edition of the sonnets.

TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
THESE. ENSVING.SONNETS.
M^r.W.H. ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.
BY.
OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
WISHETH.
THE.WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTURER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.
              T.T.

This dedication has caused almost as much controversy as any of the sonnets. The identities of Mr. W.H., the only begetter of these sonnets, and the ever-living poet, have been debated for many years.

Most commentators assume that the ever-living poet is Shakespeare. Oxfordians claim that calling Shakespeare "ever-living" means that he is dead. In 1609 the Earl of Oxford, but not William Shakespeare, was dead.

The identity of Mr. W.H. seems the greater mystery. It is usually assumed that Mr. W.H. is Shakespeare's inspiration and is the Youth of the sonnets. Those who believe the Youth was Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, think that, either accidently or intentionally, the initials are reversed. There are those who like William Herbert, the Earl of Pembroke, as the Youth, partially because no reversal is called for. Other candidates for Mr. W.H. have been proposed. It should be noted that neither Southampton nor Pembroke would EVER have been addressed as Mr. anything. They were nobleman, not Misters. Another suggestion is that Mr. W.H. is the person who provided Thorpe with the manuscript.

A few years ago, Donald Foster, now a professor at Vassar, proposed a new solution to the problem. He used a computer data base to search Elizabethan poetry and found that "begetter" always refered to the author--never the inspiration, nor the person who provided the manuscript to the publisher. In other words, "Mr. W.H." is a typo. It should read "Mr. W. SH." (William Shakespeare) the true "only begetter" of the sonnets.

Foster went on to look at the "ever-living poet." If Shakespeare is Mr. W.H., then he can't be the poet. Foster found that "ever-living" always referred to God. Thus, in this context, God is "our ever-living poet."

Evans, my usual source of sonnet wisdom doesn't think much of this. However, I like it. Viewed from this angle, the puzzling dedication makes perfect sense. Maybe this isn't what Thorpe had in mind, but it should have been.  

Foster is an interesting character. He is the guy who identified Shakespeare as the author of The Funeral Elegy. His SHAXICON database may have identified roles the actor, William Shakespeare, performed. He successfully identified Joel Kline as the annonymous author of Primary Colors. As an expert on identification of annonymous authors, he has been called in as a consultant on the Unabomber, Atlanta bombings, and Jon Benet Ramsey cases. He even looked into the authorship of A Visit From St. Nicholas ("Twas the night before Christmas..."). It wasn't Clement Moore. He's fairly young. One wonders what he will do next.

[shaxper]

Fascinating.  Could you provide a little more background on the source material for the Sonnets?  Where it was from, why it was published, etc (if you know)?  Or is that why the dedication is so puzzling?  If the dedication is to Shakespeare (and the book was compiled for him), what adventure was he setting out upon?  Retirement?  Certainly, he couldnt have been dead at this point (even if the 1609 date is wrong), or T.T. would be wishing him luck on his adventure in heaven, which seems odd.  No decent theories on who T.T. was?

[Bardolph]

Actually we know that T.T. was Thomas Thorpe.  The title page declares that these were, "never before imprinted."  Actually two of them, 138 and 144, had appeared in print in 1599.  Francis Meres mentions Shakespeare's "sugared sonnets among his private friends."  The fashionable exercise of writing sonnets had largely passed by the time of Mere's writing in 1598.  So Thorpe may have had a hand in collecting them from a variety of sources.  Given that, anything could be possible.  The sonnets could be in some kind of order of composition or not.  There is a system of order for them but that may be the invention of Thorpe, the printer, or some unknown editor in between.  

[Harry]

Yes, T.T. is Thomas Thorpe, the publisher. That he, rather than Shakespeare, wrote the dedication suggests that the volume may have been published without Shakespeare's participation. Still, Thorpe was a respected publisher who did not deal in pirated works.

Bardolph has summarized all we know about the dates of composition of the sonnets. Some must have been written and circulated by 1598 because Meres mentions them. Two, at least, were written by 1599 because they appeared in a pirate volume purporting to be Shakespeare's poetry. The Passionate Pilgrim contained three sonnets from Love's Labour's Lost, versions of Sonnets 138 and 144, plus several poems known to have been written by others. A couple of poems have unknown authors. Finally, the collection we have, all 154 of them, were published by Thorpe in 1609. Both 138 and 144 are Dark Lady sonnets which could allow for the Youth sonnets to be written later, but 144 refers to the Youth and, I believe, suggests both groups existed, at least in part, by 1599.

I believe that the most likely dates of sonnet composition were the mid-1590s. Sonnets went out of fashion after that. I imagine, if Southampton is the Youth, that those sonnets were written in response to the growing friendship between poet and patron which is suggested in the dedication of The Rape of Lucrece. The Dark Lady sonnets overlap the Youth sonnets in time as both groups refer to an affair between the Youth and the Dark Lady. The sonnets were, apparently, written over a period of at least three years because one of the Youth sonnets speaks of that time period.

We don't know how the sonnets came into the possession of Thorpe. This allows speculation that Mr. W.H. might be a compiler or supplier of the sonnets. We don't know that the sonnets are in "correct" order. There does appear to have been some care exerted in the order, several sets of sonnets are together in order.

The adventurer appears to be Thorpe, the adventure may be the speculative endeavor of publishing a volume of out-of-date poetry. Why Thorpe chose to publish in 1609 is unknown. Perhaps the Youth was dead (I believe that both Southampton and Pembroke were still alive). Perhaps Thorpe finally wheedled permision from Shakespeare or whoever had the collection.

In some ways the sonnets are pure poetry. There is no background. Any subtext we perceive is a construct of our own imagination. Many marvelous theories have been proposed--all houses of cards. I speculate like anyone else, but I try to remember that it is all speculation.  

[Ganymede]

Harry said:

It should be noted that neither Southampton nor Pembroke would EVER have been addressed as Mr. anything. They were nobleman, not Misters.

However, it might have been way too obvious had they been called by their true titles who the men were.  Perhaps the editor or the author (or both) were trying to keep the identity of Mr. W H a mystery, in which case they succeeded  This might make sense considering the (potential) personal nature of these sonnets.  

In terms of the year 1609, why not 1609?  Seemed like a pretty good year to publish sonnets.  It'd be great if the whole thing was just random and we're all trying to figure some complicated for it.  

[shaxper]

Harry said:

In some ways the sonnets are pure poetry. There is no background. Any subtext we perceive is a construct of our own imagination. Many marvelous theories have been proposed--all houses of cards. I speculate like anyone else, but I try to remember that it is all speculation.  

A very valuable point