williamshakespearesonnets.co
ESSAY – “SHAKESPEARE’S” SONNETS?
This essay promotes an entirely independent book by Kenneth Farnol - ‘The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets’- click to follow link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHMRQM3R
Contrary to ongoing traditional myths and legends the self-evident diversity of ‘Shakespeare’s’ 1609 Sonnets clearly indicates mixed authorship
Shakespeare indeed wrote some of the Sonnets bearing his name in 1609 but many are clearly of intimate, aristocratic and/or female authorship
These remarkable findings strictly rely on written evidence from the Sonnets and have nothing to do with any pro/anti Shakespeare factions
Kenneth Jeffery Farnol is an analytical retired inspection engineer/turned writer with an enduring love for all things ‘Shakespearean
This essay introduces ‘The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from the Sonnets by Kenneth Farnol - 2023’
“SHAKESPEARE’S” SONNETS?
This impartial book does not depend on unconvincing folklore or ‘theories’ but relies on evidence from the Sonnets themselves.
It is proposed that William Shakespeare did not write all of the sonnets bearing his name. This strictly independent publication explores, compares and discusses all of the purported 154 ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets with some remarkable findings. Did Shakespeare really write so many intimate Sonnets of such mixed character? There are many more reasons to question the true authorship of ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets. They are clearly Satirical, Aristocratic or Political by nature and were self-evidently never intended for illicit publication in 1609. This impartial book does not depend on unconvincing folklore or ‘theories’ but relies on evidence from the Sonnets themselves.
Contrary to prevailing myths and legends, the sheer diversity of ‘Shakespeare’s’ 1609 Sonnets clearly indicates separate authorship
William Shakespeare indeed wrote some of the Sonnets bearing his name. However, by style and content alone, many of the so-called “Shakespeare” Sonnets were more likely to have been written by the eminent Sidney/Herbert/Wroth family together with other unknown authors. Who has never wondered about the first-person authorship of clearly 'maternal' Sonnet Nos. 1-17? Were these intimate upper-class family Sonnets really ‘commissioned’ to be written by a busy playwright when they are plainly in the 'sweet' metaphysical style of the distinguished poet Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke? Then, who can deny that long-overlooked Mary (Sidney) 'Wroth/Worth' puns (and grossly insensitive metaphors) in Sonnet Nos. 80 and 83 were probably written by her 'Fair Youth' cousin/lover William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (who clearly ‘owned’ the Sonnets) on the occasion of her arranged-marriage to Sir Robert Wroth in 1604? There are more home-truths to be discovered throughout the Sonnets. Subject to recent scholarship and freedom from an exclusively ‘Shakespeare’ mindset: this long-overdue investigation encourages open-minded readers to re-read the Sonnets at simple face-value and draw their own conclusions. These extraordinary findings rely on evidence, logic and reason. As such they are over and above some very dubious stories of little credence.
“The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets” seriously questions the true authorship of ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets. It is proposed that they have been misunderstood, misinterpreted and misattributed for centuries. Some, of course, are historically ‘genuine.’ However, by gender, style and content alone, numerous other so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets are plainly by other writers. Furthermore, just because most of the Sonnets have used the then-popular ‘Shakespeare’ or ‘English’ ABAB CDCD EFEF GG rhyming scheme does not mean that they are all of exclusive origins. Several Sonnets are manifestly private, aristocratic and female and were self-evidently never intended for publication in the name of ‘Shakespeare’ in 1609. So, we should begin by establishing just which Sonnets may or may not have been written by William Shakespeare in person. This refreshingly impartial investigation carefully addresses each of the 154 ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets in turn. Satirical Sonnet Nos. 127-154 (inexplicably and exclusively grouped together), are demonstrably by William Shakespeare. Distinctively ‘non-Shakespeare’ Sonnet Nos. 1-126 are plainly sub-divided into further groups/clusters according to diverse authorship. These remarkable findings are based on Shakespeare’s known association with the literary Sidney/Herbert/Wroth family; whose confidential, sensitive and occasionally scandalous arranged-marriage issues, in 1604, are so clearly reflected in so many of the Sonnets.
Why are there so many ongoing misconceptions surrounding ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets?
‘The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from the Sonnets by Kenneth Farnol’ is an intriguing, comprehensive and wide-ranging 400-page study which is structured as follows:
CHAPTERS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
THE ARGUMENT
INDEX of FIRST LINES
‘SHAKESPEARE’S’ SONNET Nos. 1 to154 (Plus ‘A Lover’s Complaint’)
CONCLUSIONS
TABLES
1 TEN MOST POPULAR ‘SHAKESPEARE’ SONNETS
2 TEN ‘WORST’ ‘SHAKESPEARE’ SONNETS
3 TIME/SEASONAL SONNETS
4 YOU/THOU LISTINGS
5 WROTH/WORTH PUNS
6 PERCENTAGE of SONNET TYPES
7 AUTHORS
8 AUTHORSHIP ISSUES
9 THE ‘SWEET’ SONNETS
10 SUMMARY of MAJOR GROUPS
APPENDICES
i SCANDAL
ii THE PENSHURST POEMS
iii THE ‘OTHER’ SONNETS
iv WHAT IS A SONNET?
Above and beyond the text; the TABLES clearly show just how many of the diverse 1609 Sonnets are clustered, by style and content alone, into tell-tale groups in accordance with separate authorship. Attention is also drawn to APPENDICES 1 and 2, which clearly indicates an early (scandalous) love-affair between the aristocratic William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and his young cousin and fellow poet Mary (Sidney) Wroth. See TABLE 5 for pertinent WROTH/WORTH puns and metaphors. By any standards, this plainly heterosexual and historically accurate relationship is far more likely than some of the more traditional ‘Fair Youth’ stories of the popular imagination. This ‘glossed-over’ aristocratic love affair lies at the heart of many of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets and is infinitely more plausible than traditional pseudo-homosexual speculations of questionable taste and provenance. This truly is ‘Evidence from the Sonnets’ and is the essence of this project.
William Shakespeare indeed wrote some of the Sonnets bearing his name
These extremely straightforward proposals are aimed at a wide-range of open-minded poetry, truth and history lovers who are free from an exclusively ‘Shakespeare’ mindset and who are prepared to seriously challenge some long-outmoded myths and legends. Regardless of prevailing folklore, this well-intentioned and exhaustively researched book simply relies on the written evidence of the Sonnets themselves. How can we deny the extensive written evidence which is so readily and eloquently available to us? How can we repudiate the unique word-play, letter-play and vital keywords associated with each and every Sonnet in question? They are so very, very dissimilar by any measure.
There are no connections to any pro/anti Shakespeare factions. The authorship of the incomparable Tragedies, Comedies and History Plays is not in question. All opinions are my own. Despite a certain amount of Deification/denial, William Shakespeare is universally recognised as the true author of the incomparable Plays. Whilst many dramatic masterworks were self-evidently ‘borrowed’ from both classical and contemporary sources, in accordance with late 16th and early 17th C. practice; William Shakespeare truly was a master of theatrical adaptation, plots and drama in general. As such he was unsurpassed. However, the same cannot be said about all of the enigmatic and often aristocratic Sonnets which have been so dubiously accredited to William Shakespeare by ill-informed previous generations.
“The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from the Sonnets” - 2023, by retired engineer/turned writer Kenneth Jeffery Farnol updates and supersedes: “SHAKESPEARE’S SONNETS - A Guide to Authorship” - 2020. It is reiterated that these remarkable findings seriously challenge the status-quo. Many prevailing legends are clearly archaic, flawed and open to question. Open-minded readers are requested to re-read ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets at simple face-value. “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets” is intended to be logical, readable and historically accurate and is readily available at various independent on-line book outlets. These very straight-forward findings are self-evidently based on unpretentious written evidence rather than on the accumulated (and fanciful) legends of centuries. As Shakespeare’s patron, the ‘Fair Youth’ William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke has always been central to the 1609 Sonnets. However, in the face of more likely evidence, who seriously believes that he, or William Shakespeare, would have sanctioned the publication of cross-class and deeply personal ‘pretty-boy’ pseudo-homosexual Sonnets? Under these circumstances, would ‘commoner’ playwright William Shakespeare really have been the right candidate to repetitively, obsessively and publicly urge his noble Patron to marry? Sonnet Nos. 1-17 are self-evidently intimate, aristocratic and maternal by any standards. Just read them!
This investigation largely relies on the written evidence of the misnamed ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets
Why are there so many ongoing misconceptions surrounding “Shakespeare’s” Sonnets? Why are these very unlikely stories still perpetuated to this day? Has the necessarily conservative Shakespeare Establishment passed the ‘point-of-no-return’ regarding the enigmatic Sonnets? Who will rewrite the text books and/or isn’t it better left? Why, regardless of written evidence to the contrary, are we so reluctant to acknowledge centuries of all-male literary dominance and a puritanical refusal to recognise a significant female influence on the Sonnets in general? Then, what are the detrimental effects of bitterly entrenched pro/anti Shakespeare factions? This investigation largely relies on the written evidence of the misnamed ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. The literary works of the aristocratic Sidney circle of writers has also been key to these findings. Who can deny the ‘sweet’ metaphysical ‘conceits’ of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke? Who can ignore the under-recognised but essential ‘guardianship’ role of her powerful son William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke? Then, what of the persistently-overlooked Mary (Sidney) ‘Wroth/Worth’ puns and extremely offensive metaphors in Sonnet Nos. 80 and 83? Who can continue to refute the significance of these remarkable findings? Please read-on…
Whilst some ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets are plainly authentic, others are conspicuously upper-class and/or of unknown provenance. They are just so ‘different.’ In spite of the vagaries of the pirated 1609 Sonnets: why (to this day) are so many of the obviously varied Sonnet Nos. 1 to 126 so strangely, noticeably and stylistically grouped together by gender, quality, language and subject matter in so many cases? See outstanding Sonnet Nos. 92 to 95, by Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, for example. As Shakespeare’s ‘Patron’, the so-called ‘Fair Youth’ William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke not only wrote some of the ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets but seems to have ‘owned’ them before they were illicitly printed in 1609. ‘Wroth’ Sonnet Nos. 78 to 91, referring to intimate marital issues, were clearly written by heterosexual William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke; as were ‘Disgrace’ Sonnet No. 29, ‘Marriage’ Sonnet No. 116 and ‘Vile’ Sonnet Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112 and 121 for example. There are many further reasons to doubt the accumulated mythology of an ill-informed puritanical past which largely denied female authorship. Who truly believes the unlikely but enduring pseudo-homosexual elements of the ‘Fair Youth’ stories when the sheer ‘femininity’ of so many Sonnets indicates otherwise? This comprehensive study is not biased towards selected favourites such as Nos. 18 and 116 (or even ‘Freudian’ No. 129) when broad comparisons between other widely misunderstood or less-popular Sonnets yield so many compelling patterns of mixed authorship. Just read them.
“his sugr’ed Sonnets among his private friends”
This quote from Francis Mere’s 1598 ‘Palladis Tamia’ clearly indicates a very distinctive group of so-called ‘sugr’ed’ sonnets (Nos. 127-154) for limited distribution amongst Shakespeare’s (male) friends:
“As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras:
so the sweete wittie soule of Ouid (Ovid) lives in mellifluous &
Hony-tongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis,
his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private friends, &c.”
Furthermore, if we read the evocative and loosely plotted 1592 6-line stanza (sestet) epic poem known as Venus and Adonis: the tone is set for the subsequent History, Comedy and Tragedy of William Shakespeare’s dramatic plays. The 7-line stanza ‘Rime Royal’ Ovid derived story of the mythical ‘Lucretius’ presages Shakespeare’s well-known ‘Roman’ Plays. Thus, we can readily associate the rising genius of William Shakespeare as the true writer of, not only the Plays but also some of his own, so-called, ‘Sugr’ed’ Sonnets in the early 1590’s.
Then, who can deny that long-overlooked Mary (Sidney) 'Wroth/Worth' puns and adult metaphors in Sonnet Nos. 80 and 83 were probably written by her 'Fair Youth' cousin/lover William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (who clearly ‘owned’ the Sonnets) on the occasion of her arranged-marriage in 1604? This renowned nobleman has long been (somewhat bizarrely!) associated with the Sonnets in any case. Subject to recent scholarship and freedom from an exclusively ‘Shakespeare’ outlook: this long-overdue investigation encourages open-minded readers to reread the Sonnets at simple face-value and draw their own conclusions. In summary, Sonnet Nos. 1-126 are all believed to be by aristocratic and/or other unidentified writers. Sonnet Nos. 127-154, are all believed to have been written by William Shakespeare in person. Most authorities appear to acknowledge this ‘great-divide’ but in differing contexts. Thus, there is an unmistakeable, stylistic, ironic and palpable division between these two primary groupings of pirated ‘Shakespeare’ and equally pirated ‘Non-Shakespeare’ Sonnets in 1609. It is almost as if the genuine so-called ‘Sugr’ed’ first-person Shakespeare Sonnets were ‘tagged-on’ at the end in order to give some dubious authenticity to the whole mixed collection?
A remarkable 50% of the so-called “Shakespeare’s Sonnets” are self-evidently aristocratic and 32% are of unknown origins
It is firmly believed that the standing of William Shakespeare, as true author of the incomparable Plays, is not diminished by any doubts regarding authorship of the enigmatic Sonnets. As reflected in the following list: only 18% of the 1609 Sonnets are known to be by William Shakespeare in-person. A remarkable 50% of the so-called “Shakespeare’s Sonnets” are self-evidently aristocratic and 32% are of unknown origins. This investigation relies on significant evidence of mixed authorship from the Sonnets themselves. Accordingly, the true authors of the majority of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets are most likely to be as follows: -
-
Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke 1561-1621
-
William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke 1580-1630
-
Mary Sidney Wroth 1587-1653
-
Unknown -
-
William Shakespeare 1564-1616
In addition to the major demarcation between non-Shakespeare Sonnet Nos. 1-126 and authentic Shakespeare Sonnet Nos. 127-154, there are many further sub-divisions in accordance with separate authorship in 1609. For example, three major groupings by Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke, (Nos. 1-17) William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (Nos. 78-91) and William Shakespeare (Nos. 127-154) respectively, are soon discerned at the beginning, middle and end of the Sonnet sequence. By style and content alone, several minor groups, sub-groups, clusters, and individual Sonnets can also be readily distinguished. It will soon be seen just how important the fundamental differences are between the mixed groups of aristocratic ‘Non-Shakespeare’ Sonnets (Nos. 1-126) and the final satirical groups of authentic Shakespeare Sonnets (Nos. 127-154). However, further work is needed to separate those numerous Sonnets which might have been written by Unknown authors. However, even with a cursory reading, the most important ‘groupings’ should soon become evident to even the most sceptical of traditional readers. See Nos. 122 to 125 for example. They are just so ‘different’.
By style and content alone, several minor groups, sub-groups and individual Sonnets can also be readily distinguished
All Sonnets should be written in a strictly metrical Iambic Pentameter 14-line structure where each line has 10 syllables in five pairs. Usually, each pair has a stress on the second syllable. So-called ‘Feminine’ Sonnets, such as No. 20, may have 11 syllables per line. A traditional ‘Petrarchan’ Sonnet divides the 14-lines into an initial eight-line ‘octave’ rhyming ABBAABBA and a closing six-line ‘sestet’ rhyming CDCDCD or CDECDE. Most of ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets have 3 x 4-line ‘quatrains’ and a final 2-line ‘rhyming couplet’. ‘Sidneyan’, ‘Shakespearean’ or ‘Spencerian’ rhyming schemes might typically be: ABBA ABBA CDCD EE or ABAB CDCD EFEF GG or ABAB BCBC CDCD EE respectively. Typically, the opening ‘octave’ of a Petrarchan Sonnet makes a proposition and the following ‘sestet’ then provides the resolution. In these cases, the ninth line is known as the ‘volta,’ or ‘turn’. In general, the Sonnet, or little song, customarily deals with age-old aspects of love and longing. There are 154 so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets, together with “A Lover’s Complaint”, which are exhaustively compared and discussed in the 2023 edition of “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from the Sonnets” by Kenneth Farnol. For the purposes of this brief introduction, I have taken five representative examples of remarkably different origins, structure, character and authorship for discussion.
So, we should begin by establishing just which Sonnets may or may not have been written by William Shakespeare in person
I have included five so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets by (1) Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke 1561-1621, (2) her son William (fair youth) Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke 1580-1630, (3) his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth 1587-1653, (4) an ‘unknown’ author and (5) William Shakespeare 1564-1616, in person. Each of these Sonnets should be evaluated with a little insight (and freedom from traditional preconceptions) to truly appreciate just how ‘different’ they are in style, content, gender and quality. This fundamental observation lies at the heart of this project. It is recommended that we look well beyond some of the more unlikely myths and legends for a more balanced appreciation of these enigmatic masterpieces. All we seek is the Truth and there it is: in the Sonnets. Simply reread them at face-value. The following 5 examples are merely representative of the 154 Sonnets which are compared, analysed and discussed at some length in “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets”.
SONNET No. 5 by Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke
Those hours, that with gentle work did frame
The lovely gaze where every eye doth dwell,
Will play the tyrants to the very same
And that unfair which fairly doth excel:
For never-resting time leads summer on
To hideous winter and confounds him there;
Sap check'd with frost and lusty leaves quite gone,
Beauty o'ersnow'd and bareness every where:
Then, were not summer's distillation left,
A liquid prisoner pent in walls of glass,
Beauty's effect with beauty were bereft,
Nor it nor no remembrance what it was:
But flowers distill'd though they with winter meet,
Leese but their show; their substance still lives sweet.
Style Metaphysical/Maternal/Aristocratic/Intimate/Private
Author Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke
Subject William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke
Key Words Hours, Fair, Time, Winter, Summer, Beauty, Distil, Sweet, Substance
METAPHYSICAL SONNET No. 5 is an intriguing poem by Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke. Could anyone else really have written this clearly first-person poem to her ‘beautiful’ son? Why would she not have written it - especially if she just happened to have a well-known interest in science and alchemy? Not only does this lovingly written missive contain significant Metaphysical seasonal/time conceits but refers at some length to fundamental scientific distillation processes as the essence of ‘substance’ in common with her own similar Sonnet Nos. 6 and 54. There seems little reason to expect a visionary late 16th C. interpreter of the ‘Protestant’ Psalms not to have a parallel interest in Metaphysics which is also associated with the perceived nature of Creation, Being and Existence. If we read the first line of Sonnet No. 53 by the same author, we find an almost text book definition of Metaphysics as follows: -
“what is your substance, whereof are you made… (?)”
NOTE: How can we disregard the compelling Metaphysical ‘conceits’ of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke who was a known associate of John Donne (Senior) 1571-1631? Whilst William Shakespeare was not considered to be inordinately ‘Metaphysical’ - it also seems most unlikely that he did not also attend Lady Pembroke’s soirées at Wilton House. Both Shakespeare and Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke would, accordingly, have been very aware of the work of John Donne at the very least. Then what of the distinctively ‘cavalier’ poetry of Mary’s Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke’s noble son, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke?
My saucy bark inferior far to his
SONNET No. 80 by William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke
O, how I faint when I of you do write,
Knowing a better spirit doth use your name,
And in the praise thereof spends all his might,
To make me tongue-tied, speaking of your fame!
But since your WORTH, wide as the ocean is,
The humble as the proudest sail doth bear,
My saucy bark inferior far to his (See Sonnet No. 116)
On your broad main doth wilfully appear.
Your shallowest help will hold me up afloat,
Whilst he upon your soundless deep doth ride;
Or being wreck'd, I am a WORTHLESS boat,
He of tall building and of goodly pride:
Then if he thrive and I be cast away,
The worst was this; my love was my decay.
Style Cruel, Bitter and Insulting
Author William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke
Subject Marriage of Mary Sidney to Sir Robert WROTH in 1604
Key Words Worth, Worthless, Write, Worst, Wreck’d, Doth, You, Bark.
‘GOODLY PRIDE’ SONNET No. 80 by William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke is perhaps the single most revealing Sonnet in the whole collection. Following initial mock-jealous reference to a “Rival Poet” in Sonnet No. 80, a clearly bitter William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke makes some crude, insensitive and plainly disparaging heterosexual allusions which; together with several very important ‘Worth/Wroth’ puns, anagrams, alliterations and ‘Worth’ derivatives, such as ‘Write’, leads to serious questions as to whether William Shakespeare could really have written these obviously intimate and personal Sonnets relating to the initial parting of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke from his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth in 1604. Mary Wroth went on to write honestly, extensively, obsessively and passionately about these matters in later years. These pointed “Wroth” references are noteworthy and realistic pointers to her being both subject and object of some of the more poignant private and personal Sonnets which are key to my assertions. Make no mistake these are extremely insulting, unamusing and, in my opinion, uncalled-for personal metaphors which I was initially reluctant to draw attention to. In fact, to any casual reading they would probably have passed unnoticed. However, they are crucial to these investigations and throw a new light on these matters.
NOTE: The ubiquitous Wroth/Worth puns appear throughout Mary Sidney Wroth’s own later writings such as: “All Worth lost for Riches” from ‘Love’s Victory’ and were also used by other writers. Ben Jonson said: “my Lady Wroth is unworthily married on a jealous husband”. It is clear that obvious, deliberate and persistent Wroth/Worth jokes/puns, as quoted, are crucial to the long-overlooked and widely unsuspected association of the so-called ’Shakespeare’ Sonnets with both William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and Mary (Sidney) Wroth.
So shall those blots that do with me remain
SONNET No. 36 by Mary (Sidney) Wroth
Let me confess that we two must be twain,
Although our undivided loves are one:
So shall those blots that do with me remain
Without thy help by me be borne alone.
In our two loves there is but one respect,
Though in our lives a separable spite,
Which though it alter not love's sole effect,
Yet doth it steal sweet hours from love's delight.
I may not evermore acknowledge thee,
Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame,
Nor thou with public kindness honour me,
Unless thou take that honour from thy name:
But do not so; I love thee in such sort
As, thou being mine, mine is thy good report.
Style Female, Heartfelt, Forgiving, Adolescent
Author Mary (Sidney) Wroth
Subject William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke?
Key Words Blots, Spite, Love, Guilt, Shame, Honour
‘FEMALE’ SONNET No. 36 seamlessly follows on from associated No. 35 with a very pronounced ‘female’ character. By ‘female’ I mean that it has all the hallmarks of ‘feminine’ authorship rather than having an extra technical 11th unstressed so-called ‘feminine’ syllable at the end of each 10-syllable iambic pentameter line in question. Sonnet No. 36 also resembles similar Sonnet No. 96 which has the same two last lines (but in a slightly different context).
‘But do not so; I love thee in such sort,
As thou being mine, mine is thy good report.’
Poignant, sensitive and forgiving ‘cri de cœur’ Sonnet No. 36 has plainly been widely misunderstood and deserves to be read literally and with all due freedom from a pervasively masculine ‘Shakespeare’ mindset. This intimate, female and ‘juvenile’ poem should be carefully, sympathetically and humanely interpreted for its very probable real meaning. Had we never heard of Mary (Sidney) Wroth, or William Shakespeare for that matter, we might still be forgiven for seeing this Sonnet for what it says about the overwhelming love of a lonely and isolated young girl for her older and more worldly lover from whom she is to be irrevocably parted. How might 17th C. words be construed in a 21st C. ‘feminist’ context? In the manner of, significantly, adjacent Sonnet No. 35 the extremely likely female writer of both Sonnets talks of ‘blots’ which are easily construed in the context of loss of virginity in a similar manner to the last two lines of Sonnet No. 35: -
‘That I an accessory needs must be
To that sweet thief which sourly robs from me.’
SONNET No. 125 by an unknown author
Were 't aught to me I bore the canopy,
With my extern the outward honouring,
Or laid great bases for eternity,
Which prove more short than waste or ruining?
Have I not seen dwellers on form and favour
Lose all, and more, by paying too much rent,
For compound sweet forgoing simple savour,
Pitiful thrivers, in their gazing spent?
No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,
And take thou my oblation, poor but free,
Which is not mix'd with seconds, knows no art,
But mutual render, only me for thee.
Hence, thou suborn'd informer! a true soul
When most impeach'd stands least in thy control.
Style Obsequious?
Author Unknown
Subject Form and Favour?
Key Words Form, Favour, Pitiful, Thrivers, Obsequious, Oblation,
Me for Thee.
‘OBSEQUIOUS’ SONNET No. 125 more or less finishes ‘non-Shakespeare’ Sonnet Nos. 1-126. Is this the most challenging Sonnet in the whole collection? So why is this rather self-important Sonnet with ‘monarchic’ overtones situated in this particular position at the end of the sequence? As already noted in Sonnet No. 124, we might be excused for thinking that this a-typical Sonnet was written by an, as yet, unidentified senior aristocrat who was close to Royalty. References to ‘impeachable suborn’d informers’ (spies?) further serve to deepen the mystery of this ‘political’ and challenging Sonnet from so long ago.
SONNET No. 127 by William Shakespeare
In the old age black was not counted fair,
Or if it were, it bore not beauty's name;
But now is black beauty's successive heir,
And beauty slander'd with a bastard shame:
For since each hand hath put on nature's power,
Fairing the foul with art's false borrow'd face,
Sweet beauty hath no name, no holy bower,
But is profaned, if not lives in disgrace.
Therefore my mistress' brows are raven black,
Her eyes so suited, and they mourners seem
At such who, not born fair, no beauty lack,
Slandering creation with a false esteem:
Yet so they mourn, becoming of their woe,
That every tongue says beauty should look so.
Style Satirical
Author William Shakespeare
Subject Beauty
Key Words Black, Beauty, Foul, Fair
‘SUGR’ED’ SONNET No. 127 by William Shakespeare, in person, moves-on from the predominantly aristocratic so-called ‘Fair Youth’ Sonnets which are numbered from 1 to 126. Some of these, of course, do relate to William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke who was Shakespeare’s patron and has long been closely associated with the Sonnets in any case. Nevertheless, the highly diverse nature of Sonnet Nos. 1-126, which are clearly divided into separate groups, plainly suggests separate authorship. Many, self-evidently, indicate first hand female content and/or authorship. This long-neglected female aspect has long been denied and has therefore resulted in the very unlikely pseudo-homosexual ‘Fair Youth’ legends (which were plainly concocted from limited information available at the time) with which we are all too familiar. Attention is drawn to the historically accurate maternal, or so-called ‘Procreation’ Sonnet Nos. 1-17, which initiated this independent investigation in the first place. Also, Sonnet No. 127 is the first of 28 genuine ‘Sugr’ed’ Sonnets by William Shakespeare as indicated by their often-salacious subject matter, brilliant language and vivid satire. These were clearly not intended for publication in 1609 and were plainly written for a select group of (male) friends.
Unlike the public Plays, the private Sonnets were obviously not written for general entertainment
Potential readers of “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets” are again invited to visit APPENDIX 2: ‘The Penshurst Poems’, for further insight into the early beginnings of an ostensibly ‘secret’ romance between William Herbert and his cousin Mary? At best this short essay can only outline the wide-ranging research and in-depth findings of this book. It is already known that ‘Fair Youth’ William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke has long been widely associated with the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets in any case. He was a considerable and distinctive poet in his own right as was his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth. These lovers went on to have two children later in life.
The best part of “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets” is that it neatly fits historical records of the period and is backed-up by compelling written evidence from the Sonnets themselves. The worst part is persuading a necessarily conservative Shakespeare establishment that this is not just another suspect and tiresome anti-Shakespeare treatise. Some may even ask if it really matters who actually wrote the Sonnets. Why question the accumulated myths of centuries? Then who will rewrite the text-books? Is this really enough to continue to justify the continuing dubious and unconvincing status-quo to this day? My opinion is that the gifted ‘upstart’ provincial William Shakespeare was little liked by some of his more ‘educated’ contemporary writers against a relentless background of piracy, plagiarism, patronage and privilege. As proven by the Sonnets themselves: the pervasive wealth, resources and influence of the Aristocracy was so powerful, in this case, as to blur the true origins of these literary masterpieces. It is thought that the literary ‘Fair Youth’ William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, who was Shakespeare’s patron, was the trusted guardian of Shakespeare’s documents in general. These may well have been lost in one of the great library fires such as Wilton House in the 1640’s – but that is an entirely different story.
It is thought that the literary ‘Fair Youth’ William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, who was Shakespeare’s patron, was the trusted guardian of Shakespeare’s documents in general
William Shakespeare is for everyone. However, contrary to the actual words of the Sonnets, it is strongly believed that the familiar scholarly notes attached to so many of the Sonnets, are undermined by continuing adherence to long-outmoded legends. It may also be asked how an industrious ex-Inspection Engineer, who is accustomed to ‘look under the surface of things’, has written such a credible, literary analysis of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. The simple answer is that, regardless of the actual words of the Sonnets, so many traditional ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets have long been the subject of historical misconceptions. This is clearly ‘written evidence’. For example, who is truly aware of the important Wroth/Worth connotations of Sonnet No. 80 alone? Certainly, all is not what we have been led to believe, when these matters are brought to light by recourse to the written language of the Sonnets.
At best this short introductory essay can only summarise the overall objectives of this truly comprehensive authorship study. This is a large body of work which relentlessly investigates many aspects of the historically mis-interpreted ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. Yet many more facets remain to be investigated in due course. Many realistic topics have been readily uncovered by simply reading the Sonnets. However, whilst the overall goodwill of this pioneering study remains obvious, it is conceded that true attribution has occasionally been very challenging indeed and mistakes are therefore inevitable. On the other hand, some very interesting patterns of mixed authorship have been uncovered and certainly require further academic and non-academic attention. Many other realistic probabilities have also been uncovered and attention is drawn to the probability of long ‘hushed-up’ scandals associated with the Sidney/Herbert/Wroth arranged-marriages of 1604 in particular. The significance of Mary (Sidney) Wroth to the 1609 Sonnets is of especial importance if only the evidence of the words of the Sonnets are taken into account. See prevalence of ‘Worth’ puns and metaphors between Sonnet Nos. 78 – 91 for example. Some theoretically contentious conclusions; such as the probable identity of the ‘Rival Poet’, will be divulged from the evidence of the Sonnets in ‘The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets’ as follows:
“Fair Youth”
“Dark Lady”
“Only Begetter”
“Rival Poet”
Some of the more predictable and even hackneyed aspects of the above list (so beloved of past-generation Shakespeare investigators!) are included in this long-overdue and entirely independent investigation. In general, and as a matter of policy, all findings have strictly relied on the following:
-
The written evidence of the Sonnets themselves
-
Historical evidence from the period in question
-
Freedom from an exclusively ‘Shakespeare’ mindset
-
Serious questioning of traditional myths and legends
Whilst the accumulated evidence of the Sonnets is comprehensive, logical and realistic, there is clearly much further work to be done. For example, the possible identities of numerous ‘Unknown’ authors requires extensive academic, stylistic and historical investigation.
There is clearly much further work to be done
Unlike the public plays, the private Sonnets were obviously not written for general entertainment. In essence, some of ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets are ‘authentic’. However, many are self-evidently aristocratic, intimate and feminine. None were intended for publication in 1609. Whether, you decide to buy my book, or not; just read the Sonnets at simple face-value for many answers to many questions…
Finally, please click this additional ISBN hyperlink for wider on-line access to “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets – Evidence from the Sonnets” by Kenneth Farnol. 2023:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ISBN-13%3A+9781470983901
All we seek is the Truth and there it is - in the Sonnets…
Many thanks and kind regards
Ken Farnol
2023
