In order to successfully navigate this site the reader must read through the commentary of the sonnets in the order presented. This reverse order is deliberate as it is the order in which they were written. This is absolutely critical to understanding the sonnets.

Readers hopefully will see that Shakespeare's identity in Oxford was revealed in essence in 1609 by the publication of the Sonnets. The problem is that scholars have been misinterpreting the sonnets since Edmond Malone's attempt at finding authenticity in Shakespeare brought the 1609 publication back but with the attempt to fit them to the Stratford man.

The reason that they were published backwards was to conceal their true meaning enough so that they hopefully would not offend authorities. And this very likely did not work as there is more than superficial evidence that the sonnets were removed from circulation. Even orthodoxy is agreeable to this notion but they would have us believe it is for sexuality.

The clue that the order is reversed are the reversed initials in the dedication. Reversed from the expected initials of Henry Wriothesley to whom Shakespeare's two narrative poems were dedicated. And for which is corroborating evidence of the relationship between the poet and his dedicatee as presented here.

Hopefully the parsimony of this explanation as well as its internal consistency, compatibility with the dedication, and the many internal chronological details revealed will make it clear that this it is justified. In addition this entire work constitutes a theory that embodies every aspect of a theory that would very much be consistent with modern understandings of the philosophy of science. As it embodies falsifiability, probability, prediction, subsumption of other previous theories and a grand unification of not only the Sonnets but the works of Shakespeare and the English Renaissance. And this is in stark and absurd contrast to the present orthodoxy which is ironically despite the claims of scholars shares the characteristics of pseudoscience and religion. As it lacks supporting evidence, plausibility, and cannot be tested.

But the real point of this is to illustrate the greater point of the lack of epistemological basis for present day scholarship and illustrate the circular thinking permeating the discipline. And I would suggest that readers should be asking themselves how this any of this is even possible. And would encourage them to verify any aspect and any claim made independently.

And while I certainly can understand that readers might initially suggest that this narrative is the product of eisegesis. And I would argue that while they are welcome to read as fiction, the notion that not only that this could be done across the entire sequence but also illustrate an intricate scenario and historical context which can not be invalidated is in my view completely and extraordinarily unlikely.

Anyone wishing to contact the author for suggestions, comments, or criticism can reach him at alantarica@protonmail.com. And I hope that readers and skeptics will consider this a challenge and respond.