The Fair Youth Sonnets: Who Was He?

The Fair Youth is the unnamed young man addressed in the first 126 sonnets of Shakespeare’s sequence — the most sustained, most philosophically ambitious, and most emotionally complex poems Shakespeare wrote.

He is beautiful, admired, possibly unfaithful, and the occasion for arguments about time, mortality, poetry, and love that have no equal in the English sonnet tradition. His identity is unknown.

At a Glance

The key facts about the Fair Youth sonnets for quick reference.

What the Poems Tell Us

The Fair Youth sonnets are remarkable for how little they describe their subject. One hundred and twenty-six poems addressed to a young man of extraordinary beauty, and almost no physical details. We know he is young, that his beauty is of the kind associated with fairness and light, and that he has qualities both masculine and feminine — Sonnet 20 describes him as having “a woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted.” Beyond that, the poems decline to specify. No eye colour, no height, no particular feature that would allow identification.

This is not an oversight. It is a structural choice. The Fair Youth’s beauty is the occasion for the sequence’s arguments, not their subject. What Shakespeare is arguing about — time, mortality, procreation, poetry, love, constancy — does not require a particular person. It requires a particular kind of person: someone young and beautiful enough that the prospect of their decline becomes a genuine occasion for philosophical urgency. The youth is the proof of the argument in poems like Sonnet 18 and Sonnet 55, not its subject.

What the poems do tell us about the youth’s character is more specific, and not entirely flattering. He is resistant to the procreation argument — he has not reproduced his beauty in children despite seventeen sonnets of sustained persuasion. He may be vain — the speaker accuses him of spending too much time admiring himself. There are sonnets suggesting he has been unfaithful to the speaker, that he has been seduced by a rival poet, that he has behaved in ways the speaker finds difficult to excuse but excuses anyway. The later Fair Youth sonnets — from around Sonnet 40 onward — show a relationship under strain, with absences, jealousies, and betrayals that the earlier idealization did not anticipate.

The youth is not simply a beautiful abstraction. He is a person who disappoints and who is forgiven and who disappoints again. The emotional realism of the sequence’s middle section is part of what makes it so unusual in the sonnet tradition.

The Dedication and “Mr. W. H.”

The 1609 Quarto of Shakespeare’s sonnets carries a dedication that has generated more scholarly controversy than perhaps any other document in English literature:

To the only begetter of these ensuing sonnets Mr. W. H. all happiness and that eternity promised by our ever-living poet wisheth the well-wishing adventurer in setting forth. T. T.

“T. T.” is Thomas Thorpe, the publisher. “Mr. W. H.” is the crux. He is described as “the only begetter” of the sonnets — a phrase that has been interpreted as meaning the person who inspired them, the person who obtained the manuscript for publication, or simply the person to whom they are dedicated.

If “begetter” means the youth who inspired the poems, then the initials W. H. are the youth’s initials — reversed, if the youth is Henry Wriothesley (H. W.), or straightforward if he is William Herbert (W. H.). If “begetter” means the person who procured the manuscript, the identification becomes entirely separate from the identity of the youth addressed in the poems.

The dedication is written by Thorpe, not by Shakespeare, and there is no certainty that Shakespeare had any involvement in or approval of it. It may reflect Thorpe’s knowledge of the sonnets’ background, or it may be a publisher’s gesture whose meaning has been entirely lost. The uncertainty is genuine and likely permanent.

The Candidates

Two candidates have dominated the scholarship, and both have serious claims and serious problems.

Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, is the candidate with the strongest contemporary connection to Shakespeare. Shakespeare dedicated both Venus and Adonis (1593) and The Rape of Lucrece (1594) to Southampton in terms of unusual warmth — the second dedication in particular reads almost like a declaration of devotion from a lesser to a greater, from a professional artist to a patron he admires. Southampton was young, beautiful by contemporary accounts, fair-complexioned, and resistant to marriage in the early 1590s — which aligns with the procreation sonnets’ urgency. His initials are H. W., not W. H., which either rules him out as the dedicatee or suggests the initials were reversed.

Southampton was also associated with the Earl of Essex and fell from favour after Essex’s failed rebellion of 1601, spending two years in the Tower before being released by James I. Some scholars have read the later, darker sonnets — those involving absence, loss, and changed circumstances — as reflecting this period. The connection is speculative but not implausible.

William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, fits the initials W. H. exactly and has other things in his favour. He was a significant literary patron, and the First Folio of 1623 was dedicated to him and his brother. He was young and handsome in the relevant period, resistant to a proposed marriage in 1597 that his family were pressing on him — which would fit the procreation sonnets — and had a reputation for attracting the admiration of poets and writers. The problem is that the documentary connection between Herbert and Shakespeare personally is thin. The Folio dedication connects them institutionally, but nothing places them in the kind of intimate relationship the sonnets describe.

Other candidates have been proposed — William Hathaway (Shakespeare’s brother-in-law), Willie Hughes (a hypothetical actor invented by Oscar Wilde in a famous story), and various others — but none has attracted serious sustained support.

The Nature of the Relationship

The Fair Youth sonnets describe a relationship between the speaker and the youth that is intense, unequal, and difficult to categorise. The speaker is older, less socially elevated, and emotionally dependent on someone who is younger, more powerful, and apparently less invested. The love is declared in terms of absolute devotion in the early sonnets and progressively complicated by jealousy, absence, and apparent betrayal in the middle ones.

Whether the relationship was sexual is a question the poems do not resolve, and the attempt to resolve it says more about the reader’s preoccupations than about the text. Sonnet 20 — the poem that addresses the youth’s androgynous beauty most directly — ends by drawing a distinction between the speaker’s love and its physical expression, reserving the latter for women. This has been read as a renunciation of physical desire, as a coded acknowledgment of it, and as a witty deflection that says nothing definitive. All three readings are defensible.

What is clear is that the relationship is the most important thing in the speaker’s emotional life across 126 poems, and that it generates both the sequence’s highest claims — the immortality arguments, the declarations of absolute constancy — and its most painful moments of loss and self-reproach. Whatever its nature, it is the emotional engine of the sequence.

Why the Identity Question Is Unanswerable — and Why That Matters

The honest position is the same as with the Dark Lady: we do not know who the Fair Youth was, we will almost certainly never know, and the uncertainty may be less important than it appears.

The sonnets are not a diary. They are poems — highly crafted, formally disciplined literary works produced within and against a tradition of sonnet sequences that goes back through Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella to Petrarch’s poems for Laura. The real-world basis of any sonnet sequence is always partially obscured by its literary conventions. Even if we knew exactly who the Fair Youth was, we would not thereby understand the poems better, because the poems are not straightforward records of a relationship. They are meditations, arguments, and performances — using a relationship as the occasion for thinking about things that transcend it.

What the Fair Youth’s anonymity actually gives us is the sequence’s universality. Because the youth is not named, because his physical description is minimal, because he exists in the poems primarily as the occasion for argument rather than as a described person, any reader can become the youth. Any beauty can be what the poems are preserving. This is why Sonnet 18 — which gives the youth no attributes whatsoever — has worked for every generation of readers since it was written, addressed to someone none of them have ever met.

The identity of the Fair Youth is a biographical question. The sonnets are a literary achievement. The two are related but not identical, and the second does not depend on the first.

The Sonnets Worth Reading First

For readers coming to the Fair Youth sequence for the first time, these poems give the clearest picture of its range and ambition.

Sonnet 1 opens the procreation sequence with the argument that beauty held only for oneself is destroyed rather than preserved. Sonnet 18 makes the pivot from biology to art — the poem itself as the vehicle of immortality — with unusual elegance and confidence. Sonnet 20 is the sequence’s strangest and most formally daring poem, the only one written entirely in feminine rhyme, addressing the nature of the speaker’s feeling for the youth directly. Sonnet 29 shows the youth as emotional rescue — the accidental thought of him breaking a spiral of despair. Sonnet 73 is the sequence’s most concentrated meditation on aging and what love becomes under the pressure of mortality. And Sonnet 116 makes the sequence’s most philosophically demanding claim — that love, properly understood, does not alter under any circumstances — in the language of legal argument and absolute wager.

Read in sequence, these six sonnets trace the full arc of what the Fair Youth poems are doing: from urgent persuasion through triumphant claim through emotional complexity to philosophical definition.

Share This Page