The Sonnets

The spelling and format of the original printing has been largely retained in the transcription of the poems because it has features which are important for overall understanding, for example, the fact that, in the first sonnet, the word 'rose' is rendered with a capital letter and is italicised helps us to understand the immediate link to Henry Wriothesley (Rosely). Unfortunately, it is generally not so shown in modern printings.

The following features have been changed:

The poems have been divided into three quatrains and a final couplet. Although this arrangement weakens the visual aspect of the individual sonnet as one integral whole, reference to the commentaries attached to each sonnet, which are likewise divided, is made much easier.

The cursive 's' and the convention of using a 'u' for 'v' and 'v' for 'u' have not been adopted when transcribing from the original text. The letter i has been replaced by a j where appropriate. Other amendments to correct what are considered to be printer's errors are noted in the commentaries which are appended to each sonnet. Otherwise, it should be noted that in general 'drowned' should be pronounced as 'drow-ned' ie two syllables, but 'drown'd' should be pronounced as one syllable. Punctuation has been changed or added where necessary to give sense.

The 127 sonnets addressed mainly to the fair young man give a vivid picture of a developing relationship between the poet and the young aristocrat, with moments of joy, anxiety, elation, jealousy, hope, disappointment and so on. The poet evidently has some problems with the the fact that the young man has a penis, which he sees initially as an impediment to physical love (see Sonnet 20). Wriothesley himself appears to have been actively homosexual at least until 1598 when he is described as spending most of his time during the military campaign in Ireland in bed with Captain Piers Edmunds, playing wantonly with him.

The rival poet is mentioned in just eight sonnets (between Sonnets 78 and 86). George Chapman was consistently in need of patronage. He was a scholar and translator of Homer, as well as a poet in his own right, so his courting young Southampton for patronage was quite possible, though there is no specific evidence of this. That Shakespeare may have been somewhat in awe of his poetic ability and education, as is intimated in the sonnets (see Sonnet 86 among others), seems possible:

Was the proude full sail of his great verse,

Bound for the prize of (all too precious) you,

That did my ripe thoughts in my braine inhearce,

Making their tombe the wombe wherein they grew?

He (Chapman) was also known to be a member of the 'School of Night' (along with Christopher Marlowe, Walter Raleigh, Mattew Roydon and Thomas Hariot), which seems to be referenced in Sonnet 86:

Was it his spirit, by spirits taught to write,

Above a mortall pitch, that struck me dead?

No, neither he, nor his compiers by night

Giving him ayde, my verse astonished,

He, not that affable familiar ghost

Which nightly gulls him with intelligence,

As victors of my silence cannot boast,

I was not sick of any fear from thence.

Most of the final sonnets (126-154) are addressed to women one of whom may be Emilia Lanier (née Bassano), who was of Italian extraction, and issue of a musical family (sonnet 128 identifies the woman addressed as dark eyed and as a player of the virginals). Another may be Mary Fitton, who was never far from scandal and therefore possibly fits the imputation in sonnet 131 that she is black in her deeds. But there were plenty of other 'loose women' around London at the time, and there are clearly other females addressed, some of whom correspond pretty closely to the whores depicted in Shakespeare's plays (eg Doll Tearsheet). The specific references to events, situations and names (the name 'Will', for example, in sonnets 135 and 136) indicate that the sonnets were directed to specific women who would recognise references to themselves and, hopefully, be flattered (or otherwise cajoaled) into granting sexual favours. Some may have been composed for other men to woo their ladies. The /I/ persona is generally conceived as enslaved by his love for or attraction to the lady, who treats him badly. There is, of course, much of the pose of the mistreated sonneteer in this, but, equally, there is much of Shakespeare.

The idea that Shakespeare was a ghostly, insubstantial figure about whom we know very little is patently absurd. Never has a poet so successfully portrayed the roller coaster ride that is love. Each sonnet represents a moment in time when the poet tries to arrest the flow of emotions and reactions to events, and record them for posterity. Never was the heart revealed in such graphic detail for the reader. The light shed on Shakespeare's character from the events described, and from his own reflections on these events as detailed in the sonnets, illuminates him in a unique way.

Wordsworth opines:

'Scorn not the Sonnet, reader; with this key

Shakespeare unlocked his heart.'

but commentators have consistently ignored this fact, preferring to leave the man, the people addressed and the historical facts as an impenetrable fog of possible interpretations. It is simply not so.

Evidently, Shakespeare is applying his extraordinary literary talent to construct a narrative, but here using as materials his own heart and his own experiences. He is also emulating and then surpassing other writers of sonnets. In so doing, he is clearly taking some 'poetic licence' with the facts, exaggerating, poeticising, idealising, demonising.

To take an example from one of Shakespeare's plays, it is highly unlikely that Romeo spoke to Juliet in the manner in which Shakespeare has him speak: the language is heightened, poeticised, construed to evoke emotion in the auditor. The same process of poetification is in evidence in the sonnets. The difference between the two modes of expression is that, in the one case, an existing story is informed with shakespearean poetry while in the case of the sonnets, it is Shakespeare's own life that is poeticised, sometimes ironically, sometimes with great sincerity, sometimes passionately, but always with an abundance of wit and an abiding love for paradox. It should also be remembered that the sonnets always served a purpose: in the case of the fair young man, it was first to encourage him to marry, then to secure his continued patronage, then to get rid of him after he had served his purpose, in the case of the women, it was to secure sexual favours, either for himself or for one of his buddies.

One final note: the idea of giving a paraphrase of what Shakespeare is saying may appear fruitless at first, but what benefits the reader and also shows Shakespeare's poetic magic to good effect, is, having read the paraphrase where that is necessary, one can return to the poem and see how masterfully concise and inventive the poet is in expressing what he wants to say.

TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.

THESE.INSUING.SONNETS.

MR.W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE.

AND.THAT. ETERNITIE.

PROMISED.

BY.

OUR.EVER-LIVING.POET.

WISHETH.

THE.WELL-WISHING.

ADVENTURER.IN.

SETTING.

FORTH.

T.T.

There are four persons addressed by the dedication.

1. The onelie begetter, Mr W.H.

2. Our ever-living poet.

3. The well-wishing adventurer.

4. T.T.

The ever-living poet, who is, of course, William Shakespeare.

T.T. who is an entrepreneur called Thomas Thorpe standing between the printer and the book-seller, and who is the author of this dedication.

The onelie begetter Mr W.H. The initials are those of Sir William Hervey, who married Mary Browne / Wriothesley/ Heanage/Hervey in 1598/9 and became, therefore, the father-in-law of Henry Wriothesley, the fair young man to whom the sonnets were addressed. Mary died in 1607.

It is likely that, at that point (1607), Sir William came into possession of the copies of the sonnets which had been collected by Mary.

Shakespeare had no interest in publishing the sequence. They show in graphic detail the process of his becoming infected with syphilis from which he was shortly to die. Henry Wriothesley had no interest in publishing the sequence as they show his youthful indiscretions. Thorpe is therefore indebted to William Hervey for the manuscripts, which were withheld until after the death of Mary Wriothesley. Thorpe is indebted to Hervey as the 'onelie begetter' because he was the man who obtained the copies: 'begetter' in the sense that he got, or obtained them. 'Obtain' is listed as the fourth meaning of 'beget' in David and Ben Crystal's Shakespeare's Words, not that Shakespeare is the person using these words in this case, but it demonstrates that, at the time, 'beget' was used in this sense. This ambiguous use of 'beget' and the obscurity of the dedication in general has troubled commentators for centuries. It was perhaps intended that the dedication should not be understood, except by those 'in the know'.

The well-wishing adventurer: Thorpe was writing at the time of the early expeditions to Virginia. Sir William was a sea-captain, a man who had previously fought against the Spanish Armada in 1588, had been part of the Earl of Essex's expedition to Cadiz in 1596, during which he had been knighted by Essex alongside Henry Wriothesley, and subsequently had sailed with Essex and Walter Raleigh on the expedition to the Azores. It is unlikely that he did not participate somewhere in the expedtions to Virginia. He was indeed an adventurer, and may well have been setting forth on another adventure in 1609.

There is sexual innuendo everywhere in the sonnets, but it serves little purpose to make it explicit, since the main effect of doing so is to destroy the poetry. Suffice it to say that there are many words and verbal constructions which can have a sexual meaning: tillage, husbandry, uneared, spend, abuse, traffike, distillation, make sweet some viall, seale, print, ingraft, maiden gardens, to quote only those occurring in the first fifteen sonnets.

Throughout the sonnets, the poet is playing with the possiblities of words, not only the possibilites of expression, but, perhaps more fundamentally, the possibilities of persuasion. Thoughts and emotions are expressed to persuade, and this power to persuade becomes almost an obsession.

The poet writes a play. People applaud and throw money at him. Money for words.

The poet is paid to write a few sonnets to persuade a young man to marry. More money for words.

The poet tries to persuade the rich young man to become his patron. More money for words.

The poet tries to persuade the rich young man to present him with £1000. More money for words.

As far as women are concerned it is rather sex for words.

The plays, of course, are full of speeches to persuade: Richard III wooing Lady Anne, Cassius persuading the Roman crowd after the death of Caesar, Isabella pleading with Angelo for the life of her brother, and so on.

But words were of no effect on the syphilis Shakespeare contracted, either from his multiple sexual encounters with women or from the fair young man.