Delphi Complete Works of Oscar Wilde (Illustrated) (132 page)

Thou art thy mother’s glass, and she in thee
Calls back the lovely April of her prime;

and
, above all, his Christian name was Henry, whereas the punning sonnets (CXXXV
 
and CXLIII
) show that the Christian name of Shakespeare’s friend  was the same as his own –
Will
.

“As for the other suggestions of unfortunate commentators, that Mr W H is a misprint for Mr W S, meaning Mr William Shakespeare; that ‘Mr W H all’ should be read ‘Mr W Hall’; that Mr W H is Mr William Hathaway; and that a full stop should be placed after ‘wisheth’, making Mr W H the writer and not the subject of the dedication – Cyril got rid of them in a very short time; and it is not worth while to mention his reasons, though I remember he sent me off into a fit of laughter by reading to me, I am glad to say not in the original, some extracts from a German commentator called Barnstorff, who insisted that Mr W H was no less a person than ‘Mr William Himself’. Nor would he allow for a moment that the Sonnets are mere satires on the work of Drayton and John Davies of Hereford.  To him, as indeed to me, they were poems of serious and tragic import, wrung out of the bitterness of Shakespeare’s heart, and made sweet by the honey of his lips.  Still less would he admit that they were merely a philosophical allegory, and that in them Shakespeare is addressing his Ideal Self, or Ideal Manhood, or the Spirit of Beauty, or the Reason, or the Divine Logos, or the Catholic Church.  He felt, as indeed I think we all must feel, that the Sonnets are addressed to an individual, – to a particular young man whose personality for some reason seems to have filled the soul of Shakespeare with terrible joy and no less terrible despair.

“Having in this manner cleared the way as it were, Cyril asked me to dismiss from my mind any preconceived ideas I might have formed on the subject, and to give a fair and unbiased hearing to his own theory.  The problem he pointed out was this: Who was that young man of Shakespeare’s day who, without being of noble birth or even of noble nature, was addressed by him in terms of such passionate adoration that we can but wonder at the strange worship, and are almost afraid to turn the key that unlocks the mystery of the poet’s heart?  Who was he whose physical beauty was such that it became the very corner-stone of Shakespeare’s art; the very source of Shakespeare’s inspiration; the very incarnation of Shakespeare’s dreams?  To look upon him as simply the object of certain love-poems is to miss the whole meaning of the poems: for the art of which Shakespeare talks in the Sonnets is not the art of the Sonnets themselves, which indeed were to him but slight and secret things – it is the art of the dramatist to which he is always alluding; and he to whom Shakespeare said
 –

Thou art all my art, and dost advance
As high as learning my rude ignorance,

he
to whom he promised immortality
,

Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men,

was surely none other than the boy-actor for whom he created Viola and Imogen, Juliet and Rosalind, Portia and Desdemona, and Cleopatra herself.  This was Cyril Graham’s theory, evolved as you see purely from the Sonnets themselves, and depending for its acceptance not so much on demonstrable proof or formal evidence, but on a kind of spiritual and artistic sense, by which alone he claimed could the true meaning of the poems be discerned.  I remember his reading to me that fine sonnet
 –

How can my Muse want subject to invent,
While thou dost breathe, that pour’st into my verse
Thine own sweet argument, too excellent
For every vulgar paper to rehearse?
O, give thyself the thanks, if aught in me
Worthy perusal stand against thy sight;
For who’s so dumb that cannot write to thee,
When thou thyself dost give invention light?
Be thou the tenth Muse, ten times more in worth
Than those old nine which rhymers invocate;
And he that calls on thee, let him bring forth
Eternal numbers to outlive long date

and pointing out how completely it corroborated his theory; and indeed he went through all the Sonnets carefully, and showed, or fancied that he showed, that, according to his new explanation of their meaning, things that had seemed obscure, or evil, or exaggerated, became clear and rational, and of high artistic import, illustrating Shakespeare’s conception of the true relations between the art of the actor and the art of the dramatist.

“It is of course evident that there must have been in Shakespeare’s company some wonderful boy-actor of great beauty, to whom he intrusted the presentation of his noble heroines; for Shakespeare was a practical theatrical manager as well as an imaginative poet, and Cyril Graham had actually discovered the boy-actor’s name.  He was Will, or, as he preferred to call him, Willie Hughes.  The Christian name he found of course in the punning sonnets, CXXXV
 
and
CXLIII
; the surname was, according to him, hidden in the eighth line of the 20th Sonnet
, where Mr W H is described as –

A man in hew, all
Hews
in his controwling.

“In the original edition of the Sonnets ‘Hews’ is printed with a capital letter and in italics, and this, he claimed, showed clearly that a play on words was intended, his view receiving a good deal of corroboration from those sonnets in which curious puns are made on the words ‘use’ and ‘usury’.  Of course I was converted at once, and Willie Hughes became to me as real a person as Shakespeare.  The only objection I made to the theory was that the name of Willie Hughes does not occur in the list of the actors of Shakespeare’s company as it is printed in the first folio.  Cyril, however, pointed out that the absence of Willie Hughes’s name from this list really corroborated the theory, as it was evident from Sonnet LXXXVI
 
that Willie Hughes had abandoned Shakespeare’s company to play at a rival theatre, probably in some of Chapman’s plays.  It is in reference to this that in the great sonnet on Chapman
 
Shakespeare said to Willie Hughes –

But when your countenance filed up his line,
Then lacked I matter; that enfeebled mine

the expression ‘when your countenance filled up his line’ referring obviously to the beauty of the young actor giving life and reality and added charm to Chapman’s verse, the same idea being also put forward in the 79th Sonnet
 
 –

Whilst I alone did call upon thy aid,
My verse alone had all thy gentle grace,
But now my gracious numbers are decayed,
And my sick Muse does give another place;

and
in the immediately preceding sonnet
, where Shakespeare says,

 
— Every alien pen has got my
use
And under thee their poesy disperse,

the play upon words (use = Hughes) being of course obvious, and the phrase ‘under thee their poesy disperse’, meaning ‘by your assistance as an actor bring their plays before the people’.

“It was a wonderful evening, and we sat up almost till dawn reading and re-reading the Sonnets.  After some time, however, I began to see that before the theory could be placed before the world in a really perfected form, it was necessary to get some independent evidence about the existence of this young actor, Willie Hughes.  If this could be once established, there could be no possible doubt about his identity with Mr W H; but otherwise the theory would fall to the ground.  I put this forward very strongly to Cyril, who was a good deal annoyed at what he called my Philistine tone of mind, and indeed was rather bitter upon the subject.  However, I made him promise that in his own interest he would not publish his discovery till he had put the whole matter beyond the reach of doubt; and for weeks and weeks we searched the registers of City churches, the Alleyn MSS at Dulwich, the Record Office, the papers of the Lord Chamberlain – everything, in fact, that we thought might contain some allusion to Willie Hughes.  We discovered nothing, of course, and every day the existence of Willie Hughes seemed to me to become more problematical.  Cyril was in a dreadful state, and used to go over the whole question day after day, entreating me to believe; but I saw the one flaw in the theory, and I refused to be convinced till the actual existence of Willie Hughes, a boy-actor of Elizabethan days, had been placed beyond the reach of doubt or cavil.

“One day Cyril left town to stay with his grandfather, I thought at the time, but I afterwards heard from Lord Crediton that this was not the case; and about a fortnight afterwards I received a telegram from him, handed in at Warwick, asking me to be sure to come and dine with him that evening at eight o’clock.  When I arrived, he said to me, ‘The only apostle who did not deserve proof was S Thomas, and S Thomas was the only apostle who got it.’ I asked him what he meant.  He answered that he had not merely been able to establish the existence in the sixteenth century of a boy-actor of the name of Willie Hughes, but to prove by the most conclusive evidence that he was the Mr W H of the Sonnets.  He would not tell me anything more at the time; but after dinner he solemnly produced the picture I showed you, and told me that he had discovered it by the merest chance nailed to the side of an old chest that he had bought at a farmhouse in Warwickshire.  The chest itself, which was a very fine example of Elizabethan work, he had, of course, brought with him, and in the centre of the front panel the initials W H were undoubtedly carved.  It was this monogram that had attracted his attention, and he told me that it was not till he had had the chest in his possession for several days that he had thought of making any careful examination of the inside.  One morning, however, he saw that one of the sides of the chest was much thicker than the other, and looking more closely, he discovered that a framed panel picture was clamped against it.  On taking it out, he found it was the picture that is now lying on the sofa.  It was very dirty, and covered with mould; but he managed to clean it, and, to his great joy, saw that he had fallen by mere chance on the one thing for which he had been looking.  Here was an authentic portrait of Mr W H, with his hand resting on the dedicatory page of the Sonnets, and on the frame itself could be faintly seen the name of the young man written in black uncial letters on a faded gold ground, ‘Master Will. Hews’.

“Well, what was I to say?  It never occurred to me for a moment that Cyril Graham was playing a trick on me, or that he was trying to prove his theory by means of a forgery.”

“But is it a forgery?” I asked.

“Of course it is,” said Erskine.  “It is a very good forgery; but it is a forgery none the less.  I thought at the time that Cyril was rather calm about the whole matter; but I remember he more than once told me that he himself required no proof of the kind, and that he thought the theory complete without it.  I laughed at him, and told him that without it the theory would fall to the ground, and I warmly congratulated him on the marvellous discovery.  We then arranged that the picture should be etched or facsimiled, and placed as the frontispiece to Cyril’s edition of the Sonnets; and for three months we did nothing but go over each poem line by line, till we had settled every difficulty of text or meaning.  One unlucky day I was in a print-shop in Holborn, when I saw upon the counter some extremely beautiful drawings in silver-point.  I was so attracted by them that I bought them; and the proprietor of the place, a man called Rawlings, told me that they were done by a young painter of the name of Edward Merton, who was very clever, but as poor as a church mouse.  I went to see Merton some days afterwards, having got his address from the printseller, and found a pale, interesting young man, with a rather common-looking wife – his model, as I subsequently learned.  I told him how much I admired his drawings, at which he seemed very pleased, and I asked him if he would show me some of his other work.  As we were looking over a portfolio, full of really lovely things, – for Merton had a most delicate and delightful touch, – I suddenly caught sight of a drawing of the picture of Mr W H.  There was no doubt whatever about it.  It was almost a facsimile – the only difference being that the two masks of Tragedy and Comedy were not suspended from the marble table as they are in the picture, but were lying on the floor at the young man’s feet.  ‘Where on earth did you get that?’ I said.  He grew rather confused, and said ‘Oh, that is nothing.  I did not know it was in this portfolio.  It is not a thing of any value.’

“‘It is what you did for Mr Cyril Graham,’ exclaimed his wife; ‘and if this gentleman wishes to buy it, let him have it.’

“‘For Mr Cyril Graham?’ I repeated.  ‘Did you paint the picture of Mr W H?’

“‘I don’t understand what you mean,’ he answered, growing very red.  Well, the whole thing was quite dreadful.  The wife let it all out.  I gave her five pounds when I was going away.  I can’t bear to think of it now; but of course I was furious.  I went off at once to Cyril’s chambers, waited there for three hours before he came in, with that horrid lie staring me in the face, and told him I had discovered his forgery.  He grew very pale and said – ‘I did it purely for your sake.  You would not be convinced in any other way.  It does not affect the truth of the theory.’

“‘The truth of the theory!’ I exclaimed; ‘the less we talk about that the better.  You never even believed in it yourself.  If you had, you would not have committed a forgery to prove it.’ High words passed between us; we had a fearful quarrel.  I daresay I was unjust.  The next morning he was dead.”

“Dead!” I cried.

“Yes; he shot himself with a revolver.  Some of the blood splashed upon the frame of the picture, just where the name had been painted.  By the time I arrived – his servant lad sent for me at once – the police were already there.  He had left a letter for me, evidently written in the greatest agitation and distress of mind.”