The evidence as to chronology is three-fold—­(1) External, such as entries in registers of Stationers’ Company, contemporary references, or details as to the companies of actors; (2) External and internal combined, such as references in the plays to events or books, etc.; (3) Internal, content and treatment, progressive changes in versification, presence of frequency of rhyme, etc.  The genius of S. was so intensely dramatic that it is impossible to say confidently when he speaks in his own character.  The sonnets, written probably 1591-94 have, however, been thought to be of a more personal nature, and to contain indications as to his character and history, and much labour and ingenuity have been expended to make them yield their secrets.  It is generally agreed that they fall into two sections, the first consisting of sonnets 1 to 126 addressed to a young man, probably Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the friend and patron of S., and 9 years his junior; and the second from 127 to 154 addressed or referring to a woman in whose snares the writer had become entangled, and by whom he was betrayed.  Some, however, have held that they are allegorical, or partly written on behalf of others, or that the emotion they express is dramatic and not personal.

There are contemporary references to S. which show him to have been generally held in high regard.  Thus Ben Jonson says, “I loved the man, and do honour to his memory, on this side idolatry, as much as any,” and Chettle refers to “His demeanour no lesse civil than exelent in the qualities he professes.”  The only exception is a reference to him in Greene’s Groat’s-worth of Wit, as “an upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that with his tyger’s heart wrapt in a player’s hide supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you ... and is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a countrie.”  He is said to have written rapidly and with facility, rarely requiring to alter what he had set down.  In addition to his generally received works, others have been attributed to him, some of which have been already mentioned:  the only two which appear to have serious claims to consideration are The Two Noble Kinsmen, partly by Fletcher, and Edward III., of which part of Act I. and the whole of Act II. have been thought to be Shakespeare’s.  On the other hand a theory has been propounded that none of the plays bearing his name were really his, but that they were written by Bacon (q.v.).  This extraordinary view has been widely supported, chiefly in America, and has been sometimes maintained; with considerable ability and misplaced ingenuity.