THE SECRET LOVE STORY IN SHAKESPEARE’S SONNETS

Second Edition© 2008 By Helen Heightsman Gordon helenhgordon@gmail.com

Contents Note: Page numbers are from the paperback book; they may not correspond to an electronic version.

Chapter 1 - A Child of Love 3

Chapter 2 - Anagrams and Ciphers in the Dedication 8Image of the Dedication to the 1609 Edition 9Orthodox tradition: William Shakspere of Stratford 9Baconian theory: Sir Francis Bacon 10Oxfordian theory: Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford 11Puzzling form and wording of the Dedication riddle 12

Enciphered name of E. De Vere 13Enciphered name of Henry Wriothesley 14Enciphered name of Elisabeth Regina 15Three Mottos Enciphered 16Significance of ciphers for Twelfth Night 17-19How could Elizabeth Keep Her Secret? 20How could a Changeling Child become the Earl of Southampton? 21“Thou art thy mother’s glass” 23

Chapter 3 - What the Sonnets Themselves Tell Us 24Sonnet 3 Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest 24Other Sonnets from Father to Son 25Sonnet 33 Full many a glorious morning have I seen 26The need to Conceal the Father-son Relationship 27Sonnet 81 Or shall I live your epitaph to make 27Why Couldn’t Oxford Acknowledge Henry as his Son? 28Sonnet 36 Let me confess that we two must be twain 29Sonnet 20 A woman’s face with nature’s own hand painted 30

Chapter 4 - Elizabeth Tudor as Edward De Vere’s Great Love 31Sonnet 18 Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day 32

1

Sonnet 122 Thy gift, thy tables, are within my brain 34Sonnet 151 Love is too young to know what conscience is 36Sonnet 154 The little Love-god lying once asleep 37Sonnet 34 Why didst thou promise such a beauteous day 37Sonnet 57 Being your slave, what should I do but tend 38Sonnet 58 That God forbid, that made me first your slave 39

Chapter 5 - Dark Lady, Dark-eyed Lady, Black-hearted Lady 40Sonnet 127 In the old age, black was not counted fair 40Shakespeare’s Adaptation and Spoof of Petrarchan Sonnet Form 41Sidney’s Sonnet 9 - Queen Virtue’s Court ….Stella’s Face 41 Sonnet 130 My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun 42Other poems in the Dark Lady Series and Oxford’s Other Women 43Sonnet 128 How oft when thou, my Music, music play’st, 43Sonnet 129 The expense of spirit in a waste of shame 44Sonnet 133 Beshrew that heart that makes my heart to groan 45Ambivalence Toward Queen Elizabeth 46Sonnet 140 Be wise as thou art cruel; do not press 47Sonnet 121 ‘Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed 47-48Sonnet 29 When in Disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes 48Sonnet 41 Those petty wrongs that liberty commits 49Sonnet 42 That thou hast her it is not all my grief 50Sonnet 141 In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes 51Sonnet 110 Alas! ‘tis true I have gone here and there 52Sonnet 138 When my love swears that she is made of truth 53

Chapter 6 - Rival Poets and Lovers 54

Sonnet 78 So oft have I invoked thee for my Muse (imitators) 54George Chapman as Proposed Rival Poet 55 A Bunch of Rivals for the Queen’s Favor 56Sonnet 82 I grant thou wert not married to my Muse 56 Walter Raleigh as Rival Poet 57Sonnet 86 Was it the proud full sail of his great verse 58Sonnet 83 I never saw that you did painting need 59George Gascoigne as Rival Poet 60Philip Sidney as Rival in Life of Edward De Vere 61“Were I a king I might command content” 61Rivalry with Sidney in Poetry 63

2

Chapter 7 - The Difficult Decade of the 1580’s 65Sonnet 139 O! call not me to justify the wrong 66Sonnet 88 When thou shalt be dispos’d to set me light 67Sonnet 89 Say that thou didst forsake me for some fault 67Sonnet 90 Then hate me when thou wilt; if ever, now; 67Sonnet 142 Love is my sin, and thy dear virtue hate 68Sonnet 125 Were’t aught to me I bore the canopy 69Sonnet 105 Let not my love be called idolatry 71

Chapter 8 - Sonnets of Joy and Sorrow 72Sonnet 76 Why is my verse so barren of new pride 72Sonnet 25 Let those who are in favor with their stars 73Praise from poets John Lyly and Edmund Spenser 74Sonnet 106 When in the chronicle of wasted time 75Sonnet 37 As a decrepit father takes delight 76Sonnet 22 My glass shall not persuade me I am old 77Sonnet 104 To me, fair friend, you never can be old 78Sonnet 30 When to the sessions of sweet silent thought 80Sonnet 39 O! how thy worth with manners may I sing 81Sonnet 116 Let me not to the marriage of true minds 82

Chapter 9 - Disillusionment and Despair 83Sonnet 73 That time of year thou may’st in me behold 84Sonnet 91 Some glory in their birth, some in their skill 85Sonnet 72 O! lest the world should task you to recite 87Sonnet 111 O! for my sake do you with Fortune chide 88Sonnet 40 Take all my loves, my Love, yea take them all 89Sonnet 95 How sweet and lovely dost thou make the shame 90Sonnet 99 The forward violet thus did I chide: 91Sonnet 146 Poor soul, the centre of my sinful earth, 92Sonnet 94 They that have power to hurt, and will do none 93Sonnet 55 Not marble, nor the gilded monuments 94Sonnet 65 Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea 95Sonnet 152 In loving thee thou know’st I am forsworn 96Sonnet 150 O! from what power thou hast this powerful might 97Sonnet 149 Canst thou, O cruel! Say I love thee not 97Sonnet 120 That you were once unkind befriends me now 98Sonnet 107 Not mine own fears, nor the prophetic soul 98

3

Sonnet 66 Tired with all these, for restful death I cry 99Sonnet 74 But be contented when that fell arrest 101

Chapter 10 -Comparing a De Vere poem and Sonnet 87 102De Vere poem “Farewell with a Mischief” 104Sonnet 87 105

Appendix A More About Ciphers and Secret Codes and theInfluence of Rosicrucian and Freemason brotherhoods 108Appendix B Edward De Vere as a Cryptographer in poem“Shield of Love” or “The Absent Lover” 111Works Consulted Works cited in Appendices A and B(references to cryptography and Secret Societies) 115Bibliography Works Consulted for Whole Book

(also Recommended for Further Reading) 116

Chapter 1A Child of Love

A rumor began circulating during the reign of England’s Queen Elizabeth the First that she was having a love affair with EdwardDe Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, and that she had a child by himwho was being raised as the Third Earl of Southampton. One historian of the Elizabethan Era who reported this rumor dismissed it as “wildly improbable”; many scholars over the past four centuries have scoffed at it. The image of the Virgin Queen,so carefully cultivated by Elizabeth for political reasons, stillmaintains a powerful grip on the imagination, even though new evidence has come to light that she had at least three children, possibly more.

Two fine scholars specializing in the Elizabethan Era, Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, made a strong case for this secret love affair in their well-documented biography of Edward De Vere, This Star of England, in 1952. One of their goals was to restore the goodname of this 17th Earl of Oxford, whose powerful father-in-law had distorted or destroyed any records that showed him in a

4

favorable light. Yet this father-in-law, William Cecil (Lord Burghley after 1571), retained any records that might discredit Oxford. He kept copies of letters that his daughter Anne had written to Oxford, her husband, but none of the letters he had written to her. William Cecil also retained court records that sullied Oxford’s reputation, such as the false charges alleged bya pair of traitors in retaliation for his reporting their treasonous activities to the Queen, but Cecil kept no records that exonerated Oxford.

Although he was moody and unpredictable, Oxford was an enormouslytalented writer whose plays and poetry entertained Elizabeth and her court for three decades. The queen valued Oxford’s plays and comedies so highly that from June of 1586 until the end of her life she gave him a yearly stipend of 1,000 pounds, a huge sum inthose days. She required no accounting to the Treasurer for this mysterious gift, and the only official duty she assigned to Oxford was to be a member of the Privy Council. From what we havelearned over the past century, however, we can safely conclude that Oxford used it to maintain an acting company that produced two plays each year for Elizabeth’s court. After her death, the annuity was continued by King James I, a devoted fan of Shakespeare’s plays.

The plays also served to teach the English people, most of whom could not read, the history of their country and the power struggles that determined its destiny. These plays were not published during the author’s lifetime, though a few pirated copies circulated in the form of quartos. Later they were published under the pseudonym “William Shakespeare” or “Shakespeare.” The hyphenated name indicated that it should be pronounced with a long A in “Shake” and a long E in “speare.” Also, the hyphen indicated that it was a pen name, not the true name of the author.

The book Shake-speares Sonnets: Never Before Imprinted was not published until 1609, five years after Edward De Vere’s death in 1604. The collection of sonnets was found among the papers of De Vere’s widow, the former Elizabeth Trentham, when she sold her home in 1609 to Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, a friend of Sir Philip

5

Sidney and fellow poet. A man named William Hall delivered the sonnet manuscript to Thomas Thorpe, thus leading some people to speculate that he might be the “Mr. W. H.” mentioned in the Sonnet Dedication. Most scholars believe, however, that the initials are an anagram for those of “Henry Wriothesley,” the Third Earl of Southampton.

The sonnets are of special value to Shakespeare lovers because they reveal the author’s inner life, his philosophical responses to experiences both good and bad, and his nobly realized humanity. Because the sonnets were intended only for the recipient, not for publication during the poet’s lifetime, they ring true. Fortunately they remain in highly polished form, showing the author’s mastery of language and poetic artistry. This gives the sonnets an advantage over the plays published in 1623, which had been assembled from pirated quartos, actors’ prompt books, and other unreliable sources. Because the author Shakespeare did not edit the First Folio himself, they came down to us marred with errors that required considerable emendation byeditors in the 17th and 18th centuries.

But the sonnets may be more trustworthy than the plays as the authentic voice of Shakespeare. The 1609 edition was apparently suppressed shortly after publication, so only a few copies are still extant. Another edition in 1640 by the publisher John Benson (not to be confused with the playwright Ben Jonson, who died two years earlier) kept the sonnets available, but Benson was criticized for changing some of the pronouns in the sonnets from masculine to feminine. He also combined some of the poems into longer versions. In 1780, Edmund Malone published his edition, restoring the sonnet forms and numerical order, making emendations that have since become accepted as the standard version. He assumed that Thomas Thorpe had written the Dedicationin the 1609 edition, but he sensed that the sonnets expressed thefeelings and experiences of the author, because, he said, only a man deeply in love with a woman could write poems with such intensity.

Was There Any Truth to the Rumors?

6

What if the rumors about Elizabeth and Oxford were true? If so, those rumors would not be easily squelched, but would resurface from time to time as scholars unearthed new evidence. If so, theywould provide clues to some of the enduring mysteries that continue to puzzle readers and critics of the sonnets. If so, they would explain the need for secrecy, the reason why the nobleman Edward De Vere had to use a pseudonym to protect those he loved.

If true, the rumors would offer us a key into the heart of the greatest author in all of English literature, revealing a love story of epic dimensions. They would also explain the enigmatic dedication to the sonnets – a puzzle that has not been decipherable until we learned more about the life of Edward De Vere and the secrecy demanded to protect the image of the Virgin Queen.

The message is encrypted, as it would have to be, to escape the censors, the spymasters, the enemies, and the meddlers that controlled the written word in Elizabethan England. But for the intended dedicatee, and for those “eyes not yet created” (Sonnet 81) that can solve the riddle, this is the message that the greatest author in all English literature conveys to his natural son in dedicating the book of sonnets to him:

To Master W. H., or H. W. [Henry Wriothesley]:

You are a child of love – conceived in joyful celebration, begotten from the deep and enduring love your parents felt for each other, which then became your entitlement. Your parentage has been kept secret for your protection, but you carry the bloodline of illustrious persons who have lived in the white light of honor and the blue shadows of rue. Had we been less favored by fortune, we would have been less constrained by bonds and obligations running contrary to our personal desires. Yet though we could never marry, we have been ever conscious of our duty to you, always solicitous for your happiness and advancement. This little book of sonnets is your legacy, the onlylegacy your true father can offer you in secret, but my poetic

7

praise of your great worth might attain that unique immortality that only ever-living literature can confer.

You were conceived on Twelfth Night, the last magical night of Christmas revels, when guile and guises are allowed, when anything can happen. That clue is encrypted in the dedication of this work to you. On that unforgettable night, your mother was a lovely, irresistible Venus in her prime, and your father was a young, awakening, impassioned Adonis. My name, your name, and a name by which your mother is sometimes known, all appear as imbedded ciphers in our riddle. Also, you will see ciphers for your mother’s motto, “Ever the Same,” your own motto, “All for one, one for all,” and my own, “Vero Nihil Verius,” which means “Nothing truer than truth,” or “No one more faithful than a Vere.” My love for you is no less genuine for having been suppressed. It is imperishable, like that “ever-fixed star that looks on tempests and is never shaken.”

Your devoted father, E. O. [Edward Oxenford]

The son was raised as Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton. This young earl, to whom Shakespeare’s first two published narrative poems were dedicated, is also considered by most scholars to be the Fair Youth who is addressed in the first 17 sonnets. Knowing this, we can understand many of the sonnets much better than tradition has thus far allowed – by applying a fresh, far more satisfying, interpretation.

The Mysterious Dedication

We all love a mystery. Some of us cling to our cherished mysteries as if solving them would diminish their importance. So it has been with the sonnets of William Shakespeare. Unlike his dramatic works, which may have drawn upon material from the playwright's personal experiences or from outside sources, the sonnets seem to express the poet's emotions in a deeply personal,revealing way. The desire to know the person behind the name, andthe conviction that the sonnets offer biographical clues, has ledto much speculation. Each Shakespeare devotee “connects the dots”in individual fashion, clinging to his or her interpretations

8

passionately because there has been no way to determine them objectively. In such Shakespeare lovers, resistance to new theories is understandable; to find a complete solution might take the fun out of the mystery.

Game players, on the other hand, are likely to see a mystery as aknot to be untied, a puzzle to be solved, or a scrambled picture to be reassembled from various bits and pieces. They get their kicks from the "aha!" or "Eureka!" feeling that sets off fireworks in their heads, even as the mystery evaporates and its challenges fade into the quaint archives of past achievements.

William Shakespeare was a lover of word games -- puns, anagrams, and ciphers, to name a few. He has teased scholars for over four centuries with a mysterious dedication to the collection of his sonnets first published in 1609. I believe that gamesters and wordplay lovers can crack the code of the dedication more easily than scholars can, by getting into the mind of a puzzle-maker andapproaching the task in a spirit of play. Gamesters would not be likely to change the arrangements of the lines in the dedication or alter the spelling of the original, as many well-meaning editors have attempted to do. Here is the arrangement as it appeared in the volume published by Thomas Thorpe in 1609:

Dedication to “Shakespeare’s Sonnets” published in 1609 by Thomas Thorpe

As a wordplay lover, I come not to diminish Shakespeare, but to decipher the message he sent to those "eyes not yet created" in his own time – a message sent far into a future that he could only vaguely envision. In Sonnet 81, Shakespeare promised the Fair Youth that “eyes not yet created” and “tongues to be” would read the poems and bestow upon him the immortality of literature “when all the breathers of this world are dead.”

As a professor of English, I have long recognized Shakespeare's genius and loved discussing his plays and poems with students. I

9

appreciate the hard work done by generations of scholars in orderto preserve and interpret his marvelous work. My own theories branch out from the discoveries of scholars such as Alexander Pope, Lewis Theobald, Samuel Johnson, Thomas Looney, and the Charlton Ogburn family, all of whom deserve more credit than theyhave thus far received. Yet for all the labor poured into Shakespearean studies, scholars have not yet answered convincingly these four fundamental questions about the sonnets:

1. Why is the dedication to the sonnets so strangely worded, so ungrammatical, and so unconventional? Why is the dedicatee "Mr. W. H." identified only by his initials?2. Who is the "fair youth" to whom Sonnets 1-17 are addressed?3. Who is the "dark lady" referred to in Sonnets 127-154?4. Who is the "rival poet" who comes between the author and his loved one in Sonnets 78 through 86?

I believe that the academic worlds of English and American literature now possess all the pieces of the puzzle necessary to answer these questions. When we fit those pieces into a proper frame, the big picture will emerge with astonishing clarity. Whenthat happens, we will have opened new ways of understanding the sonnets, the plays, and the man who wrote them -- the author who has been justly called "Soul of the Age," the brightest luminary of the English Renaissance, whose legacy of literary treasures also entitles him to whatever immortality that we, his beneficiaries, can confer upon him.

First, a disclaimer: I do not propose to offer irrefutable proof that Edward De Vere was the author who used the pseudonym “William Shakespeare.” I offer only an interesting set of interpretations that form a coherent and plausible whole. I do not wish to enter into scholarly disputes that merely spin our phaeton's wheels in the mire of minutiae. The amazing acrimony over the authorship issue in the past century has deflected the energies of Shakespeare lovers from what should be a mutual questand desire to understand his work, his life, and his times.

Rather than argue, I invite other wordplay lovers and aficionadosof Shakespeare to join me in my adventure (follow in my

10

footnotes, as it were), to entertain some suppositions, and to conclude what they will. Perhaps they will find my suppositions too preposterous to be believed (as admittedly I once did). Or perhaps they will discern new clues that I have missed, adding new strength to my interpretations. Perhaps together we might uncover a remarkable love story, first concealed out of duty, then obscured out of loyalty, and finally buried until the tools to unearth it could become available four centuries later. Now, in this better-informed, more realistic age, perhaps we can expand our love for the literary gifts of William Shakespeare so as to encompass the flawed, lovable human beings who made possible the creation of these treasures.

* * *

As you proceed to Chapter 2, remember that encrypted clues are only one type of evidence useful for solving the larger puzzle ofthe Dedication. Ciphered names alone do not prove who wrote the sonnets or to whom they were dedicated. But together with other evidence, they may form a credible scenario that offers new ways to interpret Shakespeare’s poetry.

Two secret societies that influenced Shakespeare were the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons. Francis Bacon was known to be a Rosicrucian whose philosophical views were based on Rosicrucian principles – especially the reverence for knowledge, and the hopethat enlightenment through learning could be the salvation of humankind. In the 16th Century these fraternal movements did not keep formal records of membership, to protect each other from persecution. They employed symbols, rituals, and allegory to passalong their beliefs. They had secret codes and handshakes to communicate with others who had been initiated.

To learn more about secret societies and the cryptography used inShakespeare’s time, see Appendices A and B at the end of this book.

Chapter 2Anagrams and Ciphers in the Dedication

11

Some time ago, I became convinced that the dedication to the sonnets was deliberately written in anagrams and ciphers, and that it would paradoxically become clear only to a reader who knew what to look for. Most scholars today think that the initials "W. H." are an anagram for "H. W.," or Henry Wriothesley, the third Earl of Southampton, to whom Shakespeare had dedicated two long narrative poems published in 1593 and 1594. I agree with this interpretation. Moreover, I am not the first person to detect the letters of Henry Wriothesley's name imbedded in the lines of the dedication.

After several years of sporadic attempts to solve the riddle as an anagram, I decided to learn more about ciphers as they were practiced in Elizabethan times. Cryptology, I learned, has been practiced for a long time, at least as early as the 5th Century when the Spartans used it for military purposes. For political purposes, Julius Caesar invented the first "substitution cipher" which shifted letters of a 21-letter alphabet a predetermined number of spaces. Throughout the middle ages, educated monks usedciphers for amusement. Geoffrey Chaucer [1340-1400] used a substitution alphabet to encrypt passages in a scientific treatise about planets. By the 16th century, many books had been printed on cryptology (also called steganography, or "covered writing"). Many European states employed full time cipher secretaries who were occupied with enciphering and deciphering messages (the "secret" root in "secretary" indicates the confidential nature of their work). Sir Francis Bacon, a contemporary of Shakespeare's, wrote an essay saying that the best ciphers had the "vertue" that they "bee without suspition." In other words, the surface text (called the “plaintext”) should seem to say something innocuous while masking the ciphered message in plain sight.

At a time when plots and power struggles threatened the English monarchy and the stability of the realm, secret messages were often sent as ciphers within innocent-appearing messages. Queen Elizabeth's Privy Council included several experts on ciphers, most notably her Secretary of State Sir Francis Walsingham; her Treasurer William Cecil (Lord Burghley after 1571); her favorite

12

courtier, Master of the Horse Robert Dudley (Earl of Leicester after 1564); and her polymath legal adviser Sir Francis Bacon. Francis Bacon's older brother Anthony earned a fair living as a decipherer (also as a spy) employed by Robert Dudley (Leicester).William Cecil (Burghley), who served Elizabeth loyally for forty years, had a passion for spying and controlling that led him intodeciphering many messages himself. Cecil and his minions were notabove using torture to extract cipher keys from suspected traitors. He and Walsingham uncovered a number of plots to assassinate Elizabeth or depose her. It was their secret service agents who intercepted the cryptographed letters of Mary Queen ofScots, deciphered them, and used them to convict her of treason. (These letters may have been forgeries, but that is another story.)

In his 1992 book The Elizabethan Secret Service, Alan Haynes details the varied ways devised to hide messages-- letters hidden in the heels of slippers, the linings of trunks, or under a woman's petticoats; alum used for writing on paper or cloth; books in which certain pages contained the cryptic messages. Walsingham and Cecil knew them all. England had a general mail service usingpost horses (our source of the expression "post haste"), which was generally considered so unreliable that only commoners would entrust a message to it. Ironically, it could be used to smuggle ciphers in what appeared to be innocuous missionary letters.

Dedication to “Shakespeare’s Sonnets” published by ThomasThorpe in 1609

Now let's test some of the rumors and theories that have arisen about the authorship of the Shakespearean canon.

William Shakspere of Stratford

The orthodox tradition says that the author was a vagabond actor from Stratford-upon-Avon who signed his name as "Shaxper" or "Shagsper" or "Shakspere" (but he never spelled it "Shakespeare" as the publishers did). Spelling irregularities aside, why would Will Shakspere need to hide his own name or the name of his

13

dedicatee? Moreover, since the sonnets were published in 1609, when Will Shakspere was living in retirement at Stratford, why did he not claim them or collect royalties on their sales? The content of the sonnets cannot be convincingly linked to the knownbiographical details of Shakspere's life, and it would have been extremely presumptuous for a commoner to address an Earl, urging him to marry and beget children, "for love of me" (Sonnet 10). For these reasons, we can easily rule out Will Shakspere from Stratford as the author of the sonnets, regardless of whether or not we think he wrote the plays.

Francis Bacon

Another school of thought holds that Francis Bacon was the authorwho used the name "Shakespeare" as a pseudonym. If so, we would expect to see his name ciphered into the dedication, along with that of Henry Wriothesley. I am unable to find such a cipher. Although the letter "C" appears twice in Bacon's name, there is no "C" in the dedication. Moreover, the sonnets to the "fair youth" do not seem likely to have come from a childless, long-time bachelor like Bacon. Bacon's attitude about begetting children was set forth clearly in his prose essay, "Of Parents and Children." In the quoted passage below, he says plainly that childless men produce more for society than family men do:

The perpetuity by generation is common to beasts, but memory, merit and noble works are proper to men, and surely a man shall see the noblest works and foundations have proceeded from childless men, which have sought to express the images of their minds, when those of their body have failed. So the care of posterity is most in them that have no posterity.

Bacon was still alive in 1609 when the sonnets were published. Ifthey had been his work, surely he would have claimed them. Or, ifthey contained state secrets, he could have blocked their publication. He also published prodigious amounts of scientific and philosophical material in his own name, leaving little or no time for writing and producing plays and sonnets. For these reasons, we seriously question whether Francis Bacon was the author of the poems.

14

Alfred Dodd, a Twentieth-century English Baconian who has writtenmany books about Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, gives Bacon credit for reviving some of the Knights Templar rituals and for adding degrees to the original three Masonic levels of entered apprentice, fellow craft, and master craft. The 33 degrees he developed, says Dodd, related to his own numerical signature – 33. This number was obtained by assigning a number to each letter of the alphabet, and then adding together those that make up the name (counting I and J as one letter).B =2, A =1, C =3, O =14, N =13. 2+1+3+14+13 = 33.

As a group, Baconians began to build a case using ciphers in the 18th century, although questions about the authorship had existedsince 1601 [Churchill, Shakespeare and his Betters, 186-188] They claimed to have discovered ciphers of Bacon’s name imbedded in various Shakespeare materials. Grateful as I am for the work theyhave done in documenting the prevalence of ciphers in ElizabethanEngland, certain flaws in their assumptions have weakened their case and led to skepticism about the whole topic of ciphers. These flaws include taking such liberties as substituting a letter at random to make it fit a preconception, or spelling Bacon’s name as BEKAN (or worse), or converting letters to complicated numerical translations of doubtful utility.

To my knowledge, the Baconians have not been able to establish plausible connections between the known events of Francis Bacon'slife and the content of the sonnets. Therefore Baconians provide no enlightenment that might lead to a more satisfying interpretation of Shakespeare’s sonnets.

Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

The most plausible theory, it seems to me, is that Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, disguised his identity with the pen name "William Shakespeare" because of his close connections to Elizabeth's court. Supporters of this candidate, generally called "Oxfordians," have found many parallels between the eventsin the plays and the life experiences of Edward De Vere. They maintain a web site where the authorship controversy is briefly explained, (www.shakespeare-oxfordfellowship.com) with links to

15

other web sites about Shakespeare, including a similar organization in the U.K. called "The De Vere Society" ( http://www.devere.org.uk ).

The relationship between Oxford and Southampton is still being debated among Oxfordians. Some Oxfordians believe that Henry Wriothesley was the natural son of Edward De Vere, which would explain the fatherly tone of the sonnets addressed to the "fair youth." We also find at least two ciphers in the dedication that could refer to Edward De Vere: Vere and E. Ver. I had observed that the word "adventurer" (a startlingly unusual term in a dedication) contained the letters of "e.ver" or "vere" and that the oddly-placed "wisheth" was probably the longest single word that could be made from the name "Henry Wriothesley." It seems probable that the poet had started with the names he wanted to insert, and then found some words containing those letters -- words that he could use even if by doing so he contorted the syntax. (See diagrams of ciphers inserted below.)

John Rollett, writing in The Oxfordian in 1997, shows one way of aligning the letters of the sonnet dedication in rows and columnsto spell the name of Henry Wriothesley vertically. Using a slightly different configuration of rows and columns, he finds the name of De Vere, whom he would like to see confirmed as the author of the Shakespearean canon. Rollett also points out the unusual spelling of "onlie" (I would add the unusual spelling of "insuing" which also suggests a cipher). Rollet stresses the importance of the original layout of the dedication. He notes that many editors and publishers have altered the spelling or rearranged the lines, thus hindering the search for its cryptic meaning.

The dedication is also unusual for having a dot after each word, which suggests to Rollett that a clue could be found by counting.The dots may also provide a clue that the author was familiar with Rosicrucian and Freemason secret codes, both of which use dots for letters. (See further explanation in Appendices A and B.)

16

What struck me was the odd grammatical structure following the words "promised by." It suggests that an encoded message has dominated the author's choice of words and the order in which they appear (“promised by our ever-living poet wisheth the well-wishing adventurer in setting forth”).

The initials "T.T." at the bottom of the dedication are generallyunderstood to stand for Thomas Thorpe, the publisher. But it is highly improbable that Thorpe could have written the Dedication. It is far too different from other dedications that are known to be his, several of them cited by Rollett. Furthermore, Thorpe usually signed his initials “Th.Th.” The book’s title, Shake-speares Sonnets, Never Before Imprinted, was obviously written by Thorpe to stimulate sales, so it would not be in his best interest to present the dedication as a riddle. The sonnet book may well havebeen suppressed by authorities or by Henry Wriothesley himself, since Thorpe didn’t issue a second edition. But Shakspere of Stratford did not step forth to claim authorship or royalties.

Perhaps the real Shakespeare did not step forward because he was already dead. Edward De Vere had died in 1604 (presumably of the plague, but that is not certain). Thomas Thorpe obtained the manuscript from a William Hall, whose initials “W.H.” have led tospeculation that he might be the mysterious “Mr. W.H.” to whom the sonnet book is dedicated. Some readers who assume that Thorpewrote the dedication have suggested that Hall is the “onlie begetter” because he procured the manuscript.

But there is a far more logical explanation. “Master Henry Wriothesley” was a Freemason at the master’s level and the son ofEdward De Vere, also a Freemason. The “procurer” William Hall hadobtained the manuscript privately from the possessions of Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke, after Greville had purchased a home from Edward De Vere's widow, Elizabeth Trenton De Vere, Countess of Oxford. Presumably the manuscript had been left behind when the Countess moved. This fact makes a direct connection between Edward De Vere and the sonnets.

Building upon the work of Rollett, Prechter, William Ray, and other Oxfordians (called “Oxfordians” because they believe Oxford

17

used the pen name “Shakespeare”-- in contrast to the theoretical camps of "Stratfordians" and "Baconians"), I can find three namesof importance to the love story encrypted in the plaintext (surface meaning) of the Dedication. The diagrams below show the ciphers for the first initial and last name of E. De Vere (it canactually be found twice) and the name of Henry Wriothesley (it can also be found twice, once above and once below the midpoint “by”).

One would expect to find the name of the dedicatee, Henry Wriothesley, because he was the person to whom Shakespeare dedicated his first two published narrative poems, “Venus and Adonis” (1593) and “The Rape of Lucrece” (1594). It is reasonableto assume that if Edward De Vere was using the pen name of “William Shakespeare” he would imbed his own name also. The thirdname is that of “Elisabeth Regina,” (Elisabeth spelled with an “s” to avoid easy recognition of a “z” in the encryption).

Undoubtedly Oxford /Shakespeare, like many other Renaissance writers, knew about hidden ciphers and used them. The ones I discovered in his sonnet dedication followed these rules: Begin at any given point in the message, move along the line toward theright, the left, or alternating directions, so that the encoded name appears in a sequence (the number of letters between the ciphered ones could vary). Backward or forward from top to bottombetween lines could be legitimate moves, as could upward and downward, and skipping a line would be permissible. The pattern of letters must, however, appear in a sequence, not in scrambled order. Letters could be used twice in two different names or motto words, but not twice in the same name or word. (See the diagrams printed below.)

E. De Vere Mr. W.H. = Henry WriothesleyE. Regina

18

The diagram directly above shows that the full name of “ElisabethRegina” can be located twice, using the rules explained above. Begin with a starred letter, follow the dotted lines in sequence without using the same letter twice in the same name. The four starred letters begin the name words “E” for Elisabeth (twice) and “R” for Regina (twice).The statistical odds against all these ciphers appearing in the 28-word dedication would be exceedingly small, arguing strongly against mere coincidence. Other investigators might find additional names or clues that I missed, in which case the statistical odds would increase.

As further evidence of the author’s ingenuity, he imbedded the mottos of all three of the trinity of father, mother, and son. Elizabeth’s motto was semper eadem which translates as “ever the same”; Henry’s motto ung par tout, tour par ung translates as “one for all, all for one,” and Edward’s motto vero nihil verius or vero nil verius can be translated as "true, nothing truer" or "nothing truer thantruth,” or in this case, perhaps “nothing truer than Vere." In this context, "true" also connotes loyalty, a quality for which the De Vere family was noted. Their loyalty to their kings, notably in battle and archery, had been rewarded with gifts of land, profitable concessions, and positions of distinction at Court. Along with his title of 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward had inherited the role of Lord Great Chamberlain, which carried with it the privilege of bearing the royal canopy on state occasions, according to the scholar Charlton Ogburn, Jr. Ogburn says that Edward’s father, the 16th Earl of Oxford, officiated in this manner at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth I, and Edward De Verebore the canopy in celebration of England's victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588. Knowing this fact gives poignancy to the line in Sonnet 76, "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy." Such aroyal privilege, the poet says, means nothing in comparison to the satisfaction of loving and being loved.

The mottos of Elizabeth and Henry are also featured in Sonnet 76,lines 5-9:

Why write I still all one, ever the same, [allusion to mottos]And keep invention in a noted weed, [noted weed = recognized

19

mourning garment] That every word doth almost tell my name, [every word = e-vere]Showing their birth, and where they did proceed? [birth = they originated with me]

[where . . proceed = they always go toward you]O know, Sweet Love, I always write of you And you and love are still my argument [argument = theme, subjectmatter]

If we perceive Edward De Vere and the author Shakespeare to be the same person, other interpretations of the sonnets become lessproblematic. For example, Edward De Vere liked to make puns on his name, which appears in Latin roots meaning "true" (very, verity, verily, verify) and "springtime" (vernal, verdant, verdure). The author Shakespeare also liked to use puns, and we might expect him to offer some clues as to his real identity through punning. In Sonnet 75, Shakespeare writes "that every word doth almost tell my name." Oxfordians consider that line to be a pun on his name "E. Vere" or "E. Ver" which tells his "true"name. This version is the one that appears in cipher in the dedication.

The word "verre" means "glass" in French, and Shakespeare always favored the word "glass" rather than "mirror." In Sonnet 3, Shakespeare writes to the Fair Youth, "Thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee/ Recalls the lovely April of her prime." In other words, assuming that the Fair Youth is Henry Wriothesley, Third Earl of Southampton, he looked so much like his mother that he seemed to be a reflection in her looking-glass.

The Significance of “Twelfth Night”

In investigating the rumor of the love affair between Oxford and Elizabeth, I searched through the Dedication looking for the three names of the father, mother, and son. The inclusion of the three mottos also reinforced the idea that Oxford/Shakespeare hadwritten his own dedication to the sonnets. But I also made

20

another discovery -- quite by accident -- that convinced me the love affair was genuine.

Over the last several years I had tried making anagrams of the words in the dedication, trying to find a message using the same letters as in the plaintext, and using each letter only once. Theambiguity of "V" and "U" being used interchangeably posed something of a problem, but even when I allowed for that, I couldnot find a satisfactory arrangement in pure anagram form.

Then I read whatever I could find about ciphers. Looking for patterns I had read about, I was struck by the cluster of lettersat the lower right hand corner which spelled "night." My immediate reaction was, if "night" appeared in one corner, then "twelfth" might appear in

another. The upper left corner of that triangle did contain the start of "twelfth" in the words "the well-wishing" and the end of the word could be found in "forth," the last word in that ungrammatical sentence which seemed to have no other purpose but to complete this triangle. Since “Night”also appears in the upper right corner, the two-word title can be seen as ornamenting the opposite corners. (See diagrams of Ciphers)

Dedication to “Shakespeare’s Sonnets” published in 1609 by Thomas Thorpe

Twelfth Night

I was familiar with Shakespeare's play, "Twelfth Night," a comedysatirizing some of the personalities in Elizabeth's court such asSir Christopher Hatton, a devoted admirer of the Queen, lampoonedas Malvolio. But why "Twelfth Night," of all his plays?

21

Perhaps the explanation was in the nature of the holiday, about which I knew little. My encyclopedia informed me that the twelve days of Christmas were a time of revelry beginning at Christmas and extending until January 6. Many of Shakespeare's plays were presented during that festive period to entertain her majesty, her courtiers, and her guests. But what was so significant about the last night of the revelry? The Twelfth Night holiday was a time of topsy-topsy-turvy, a time of daring, when disguises and masks gave revelers a chance to be someone else, when nothing waswhat it appeared to be.

Still I was not satisfied. I began to feel as if I had taken on the role of those "eyes not yet created" that Shakespeare believed would someday read his verses and make his loved one immortal (Sonnet 81). I turned to the biographical information about Henry Wriothesley. He was born on October 6, 1573. That means the probable date of his conception would have been January6, the Twelfth Night of that year's celebrations. In that year, Edward De Vere had been considered one of the queen's favorites. He was a handsome, well-built young courtier 23 years of age. Elizabeth was fifteen years older, yet still in her prime at 39. They were together on Twelfth Night, celebrating the revels. Could the Twelfth Night in 1573 have been a memorable night of love as well as one of revelry?

That seems to be the intent of Shakespeare/Oxford – to reassure his natural son that he was a love-child, not an unwanted child. I could picture the anguish of a father writing in verse to his natural son, "I may not ever more acknowledge thee, lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame," as he did in Sonnet 36, yetwhen that son was under threat of execution in 1601, Shakespeare/Oxford wanted desperately to give that son the only legacy he could offer -immortality in literature.

In his biography The Life and Times of Elizabeth I, Neville Williams painted an unflattering picture of Edward De Vere as one of Elizabeth's courtiers. Williams wrote:

Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, was feckless, thoughtless and a "heel", keeping his countess short of money yet lavishly

22

supporting indigent poets and actors. The Queen found him a most unsatisfactory favourite, yet there was something appealing in his eccentric, dissolute ways, and after anger and tears would come reconciliation. Her continued favour of this worthless aristocrat, against her better judgment, was to set in train the wildly improbable story that they were lovers, and the Earl of Southampton was their offspring! [Williams, p. 111]

Wildly improbable, indeed! No one would ever believe it! But suppose it were true! Then it would explain the need for secrecy,for a pseudonym, and for a stand-in such as Will Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon. It would also explain a cryptic dedication by a poet-father who wanted his son to know the secret of his birth,and the truth about his illustrious parentage, although the poet himself declared "That I, once dead, to all the world must die” [sonnet 81].

This rumor has survived even to this day, known in some quarters as the "Prince Tudor" theory. Few scholars give it much credence,although most do believe that the sonnets reveal Shakespeare's personal feelings. Certainly the theory gives us a radically different way to interpret the sonnets, sufficient to dismiss onerecurrent notion that the male-to-male relationship is a homosexual one. I will return to the sonnet interpretations later, but first I want to test the theory against some external and practical considerations.

How Could Elizabeth Keep Her Secret?

The primary question, of course, is whether such a liaison would have been even remotely possible. I have searched through history, biography, and even the fashions of the Renaissance Period, to satisfy myself that Elizabeth could have concealed a pregnancy from all but a few intimate friends. In fact, it may have happened before.

Ten years earlier, Elizabeth had absented herself from court for six weeks. It was reported that the Queen had smallpox and almostdied, but the circumstances were somewhat puzzling. The pock marks had not appeared as early in the progress of the disease as

23

they normally did (supposedly making it a more serious matter), and her complexion seemed to be blessedly free of scarring when she returned. Moreover, she was treated by a German doctor whom she expelled once in anger, but she later recalled him. This occurred toward the end of 1561 or early 1562, depending on whether we use the Old Style or the New Style dating system (the calendar year had been changed to begin in January – new style --rather than in March -old style).

Elizabeth’s chief lady in waiting at that time was Lady Ann Bacon, the wife of Sir Nicholas Bacon. Some believe that Francis Bacon (whose birthdate is sometimes given as 1562 but usually as 1561) was actually the child of Elizabeth and her long-time favorite, Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester. Some others believe that Francis was the child of Elizabeth and Francis Walsingham, her chief spymaster, because of the facial resemblance to be seen in their portraits and the fact that an illegitimate son was often given the first name of his father. Francis was raised among the other children in the Bacon family, but he did not share in the inheritance when Sir Nicholas Bacon died. Instead, Francis had to make his own living as a lawyer andcryptographer.

Many Baconians today believe that Francis Bacon was Elizabeth's unacknowledged son, who never received the royal preferment from Elizabeth that he hoped for. (But her successor, King James I of England, did offer Bacon some choice appointments). Although the possibility is intriguing, it is not within the scope of this chapter to present the case for Francis Bacon. It is mentioned only to illustrate how Elizabeth might have handled a pregnancy in 1561 and again in 1573.

If Elizabeth had conceived on Twelfth Night, January 6, 1573, shewould have been able to wear fashionably loose garments through the summer months to conceal her pregnancy. (She favored the Farthingale design, which used hoops to project a skirt to enlarge the hip area.) Elizabeth did find ways to keep some of her suitors away from London that autumn, and she may have conducted the business of the crown through letters or have takenactions through her trusted counselor, William Cecil, (who was by

24

then titled Lord Burghley). Elizabeth's devoted courtier and bodyguard Christopher Hatton was sent to a spa for his health, and he duly complied, though he wrote that he was in agony not tobe in her presence.

Elizabeth also found a reason to send Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, to Ireland for several months, after he had fallen outof her good graces in 1572. He had been pressuring her for some time to name him as Prince Consort, and had even approached the Spanish king Philip II to influence Elizabeth in support of his suit. Perhaps he was emboldened by the knowledge that Elizabeth had borne a son or two by him (Arthur Dudley, the first son, was allegedly born in August, 1561, when Elizabeth had been said to be bloated by dropsy, and was being raised by a humble foster family in relative obscurity.) Robert Devereux, the 2nd Earl of Essex, born November 1566, was widely supposed to be the son of Robert Dudley and Elizabeth. If Elizabeth had married Dudley, oneof their sons might have been legitimized to become Elizabeth's heir. But Dudley's ambition annoyed Elizabeth so much that she once snapped at him, "If you seek to rule here, know ye that there will be only one Mistress in this court and no master!"

Dudley also infuriated the Queen by having an affair with Lady Douglass Sheffield, who bore him a son in 1573. Lady Sheffield claimed that she and Dudley had been married secretly, following the death of her husband, but she could not offer proof of that marriage. Dudley denied the marriage but did not deny paternity, so Lady Sheffield named her son “Robert” after his natural father, as was customary. Dudley's irresponsibility (or even disloyalty, as Elizabeth probably interpreted it) may have contributed to the Queen's disenchantment with him during the holidays of 1572-1573. Conceivably she could have sought companionship elsewhere, just as he had done. The young Earl of Oxford appealed to her, with his muscular build, his wit, his talent for verbal repartee, and his courtier's skill in dancing. She might have left her own bedchamber, where she usually dined alone, and spent some time in his.

Twelfth night, the culmination of a holiday season of lavish entertaining, had an aura of magic. In the afterglow of the wine,

25

music, and dancing, it might not have seemed so strange for a woman to seduce a man, or for an older woman to instruct a younger man in the arts of love, or even for a queen to submit toone of her subjects in the spirit of amorous play.

Though these behaviors seem to reverse normal social roles, this possibility gains credibility when we look to "Venus and Adonis,"the first narrative poem published under the name of "William Shakespeare" in 1593. It tells the story of Adonis, a shy youth, who is seduced by Venus, a beauty who brings out latent passion in him. The erotic imagery in that poem, conveyed by symbols of spirited horses in amorous frolic, might have been one way for the poet to say to his son, "This is how it happened: you were conceived in love and tenderness, emotions which have since been transformed into my love and devotion for you." The poem ”Venus and Adonis” was openly dedicated to Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton, who was then nineteen years old. He was already being considered one of the most eligible bachelors in the kingdom.

How Could a Changeling Child Become the Earl of Southampton?

If indeed it could have been possible for Elizabeth to have a child by Edward De Vere, by what arrangements could their son have become the Third Earl of Southampton? The Second Earl of Southampton, (also named Henry Wriothesley), had been imprisoned in the Tower in 1571 for participating in the Ridolfi Plot, specifically for "his well wishes toward the marriage of the Dukeof Norfolk and Mary Queen of Scots." Norfolk, the proposed bridegroom for Mary, was beheaded in 1572, accused by Elizabeth'scounselors of conspiring to overthrow Elizabeth and to place a Catholic monarch on the throne. According to the family historianCharlotte C. Stopes, the Second Earl of Southampton was permittedto move from the Tower to his father-inlaw's house in July of 1573. On October 6, he wrote from there to a friend that his wifehad been seized (implying labor pains?) and delivered "a goodly boy." In this way the date of young Henry's birth was established– October 6, 1573, exactly nine months after the Twelfth Night celebrations of that year. Could Lord Burghley have released the Second Earl of Oxford from the Tower with the condition that he

26

and his countess accept the child as their own, and thus as the heir to the earldom?

Certainly the circumstances were suspicious. No christening records exist for the scion of this noble family, yet the Second Earl seems to have accepted the newborn as his heir. Nor did he raise questions about his wife’s faithfulness, although he was imprisoned (with no conjugal visits allowed) when the conception took place in January. Thus he could not have been the biologicalfather of the child born October 6, and there is no evidence thathis countess, Mary Browne Wriothesley, was pregnant with another man’s child. Although the history is clouded, Oxfordians tend to believe that the Third Earl of Southampton was a changeling child.

Lord Burghley sent an agent to keep an eye on the Second Earl of Southampton, a lawyer who attempted to divert the Southampton assets to his own purposes. His influence over her husband causedthe Countess to complain, but the Earl left her and took little Henry with him. The Second Earl did not allow the boy to see his mother from 1577 to 1581, when he died. Thus the eight-year-old boy became the Third Earl of Southampton.

Soon after the Second Earl’s death, young Southampton became a ward of the court and was educated under the supervision of Elizabeth's chief advisor, Lord Burghley, who had also been the guardian of Edward De Vere from the age of 12. In 1590, Lord Burghley was proposing a match between Henry, his ward, and Elizabeth Vere, his granddaughter. Some readers have inferred that the “procreation” sonnets express Shakespeare/Oxford’s desire to promote this match. However, others argue that the sonnets do not advocate any particular woman as a bride for the fair youth. Rather, for Oxford, it was very important that this beautiful young man should marry and beget a “copy” of himself.

The sonnets urging the "fair youth" to have children take on a special poignancy if we consider that Oxford and his Countess, Anne Cecil (Burghley's daughter), had a son who died in infancy, leaving Oxford with no legitimate male heir. (Years later, Oxford

27

did have a son by his second wife, Elizabeth Trenton, whom they named "Henry De Vere," and who became the 18th Earl of Oxford.)

If Oxford did meet Southampton for the first time in 1590, as a proposed suitor for his daughter, he would have been delighted. He had not seen his son since his birth in 1573. Sonnet 33 particularly invites such a poignant interpretation, with its puns on "son/sun" and region/regina": "Even so my Sunne one earlymorn did shine,/ With all triumphant splendor on my brow,/ But out alack, he was but one hour mine,/ The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now." The feelings expressed in Sonnet 33 could apply even more fittingly to an illegitimate son, for the poet is separated from his sun/son by a mask, a false identity, which is imposed by a "region" cloud, reigning over him. (See also discussion in Chapter 3.)

Did Henry Wriothesley look like his mother? And was his mother Queen Elizabeth? Certain portraits of Elizabeth and of Southampton do show a remarkable resemblance. Compare the best-known portraits of Wriothesley, painted when he was about 21 and about 30, to the portrait of Elizabeth known as the "Sieve portrait" (so called because of the sieve she is holding). Both faces are narrow, both noses long and slightly arched. And both were noted for beautiful eyes, as had been Elizabeth’s mother, Ann Boleyn. In Sonnet 17, Shakespeare extols that feature: "If I could write the beauty of thine eyes/ And in fresh numbers numberall your graces,/ The age to come would say this Poet lies,/ Suchheavenly touches ne'er touched earthly faces. / But were some child of yours alive that time, / You should live twice -- in it,and in my rime."

“Thou art thy mother’s glass”••

In at least some of the sonnets, the Dark Lady character may haverepresented Elizabeth in her darker moods, for she was known to

28

exhibit vanity, jealousy, and cruel vengeance. For example, when her lady-in-waiting Anne Vavasor bore a son sired by Oxford, Elizabeth had both of them imprisoned in the Tower along with their newborn infant. When the young Earl of Southampton secretlymarried another of her maids of honor (Elizabeth Vernon), thus willfully defying the Queen’s orders, Elizabeth had him imprisoned in the Tower. In theory the maidens were under her protection while she sought suitable marriage partners for them, but the young are less likely to follow advice than to follow their hearts. After a short time, the Queen relented and releasedher prisoners, but they were no longer in her good graces.

To make matters worse, Henry Wriothesley became a close friend and follower of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, the stepson (or actually the son) of Elizabeth's deceased favorite, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. The Essex Rebellion was a culmination of years of power struggles at court, with different factions seeking access to the Queen and trying to block the access of others. Nonetheless Essex lost his head for treason, and Southampton escaped that fate only through the intervention of Robert Cecil, who had succeeded his father William as Elizabeth'schief advisor. Southampton was again imprisoned in the Tower for his participation 30in the plot. These punishments involved painful decisions for Elizabeth. The heartache may have influenced Shakespeare (Oxford) to write in his tragedy of King Lear the memorable lines, "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is/ to have a thankless child."

Shortly after Queen Elizabeth died in 1603, Edward De Vere died in 1604. Some mysterious circumstances surrounding his death are still being investigated, such as why no will of his has been found, and why King James I, Elizabeth’s successor, detained the Earl of Southampton and held him overnight in the tower on the day De Vere died. Perhaps King James was worried that Oxford’s will could reveal some family secrets.

As for De Vere, he probably believed that he would never be able to reveal his identity as an author, and thus he wrote in Sonnet 81, addressing the Fair Youth: “Your name from hence immortal life shall have,/ Though I, once gone, to all the world must

29

die.” Credit for his plays would go to his "upstart crow" stand-in at the market town of Stratford-on-Avon. The mother of his first son would go down in history as a Virgin Queen. Their love-child would be viewed only as his patron, never as his heir. And he, the 17th Earl of Oxford, would be remembered as a “black sheep” in the family, if anyone remembered him at all. But a little chapbook of sonnets survived, and it may have fulfilled his prediction better than he had hoped:

“So long as men shall live and eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.”

* * * *Chapter 3What the Sonnets Themselves Tell Us

The first seventeen sonnets in the sequence, addressed to the "Fair Youth," urge him to marry and beget children. This theme isconsistent with the theory that the poet is a father writing to his son, as is the fatherly tone of the poems. It also reflects the attitudes of nobility for whom begetting an heir is seen as asolemn duty. In a political climate preoccupied with matters of succession to the crown, this question loomed like an impending storm cloud. King Henry the VIII, Queen Elizabeth’s father, had been so obsessed with having a male heir that he broke away from the Roman Catholic church to divorce his first wife. Queen Elizabeth was pressured constantly to marry and provide the country with a crown prince, or at least to name an heir. Therefore it would not be surprising for Edward De Vere to urge his handsome son to marry and make "copies" of himself.

Sonnet 3 exemplifies the theme of preserving beauty through reproduction, and also expresses the deep feelings the poet stillhas for the fair youth's mother. For modern readers who are unaccustomed to Shakespeare’s language or unfamiliar with the tightly compressed form of the 14-line verse form, a prose paraphrase follows the sonnet. Reading the prose paraphrase firstmight help with understand the poem’s message, but re-reading thesonnet will help to develop an appreciation for the artist’s poetic skill.

30

Sonnet 3

Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest Now is the time that face should form another; Whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest, Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother. For where is she so fair whose unear'd womb Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?Or who is he so fond will be the tombOf his self-love, to stop posterity?Thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee Calls back the lovely April of her prime:So thou through windows of thine age shall see Despite of wrinkles this thy golden time.But if thou live, remember'd not to be,Die single, and thine image dies with thee

Paraphrase of Sonnet 3Look in your mirror, and say to yourself, now is the time to havea child that looks like you. If you do not renew your handsome features by giving the world a fresh young likeness, some woman will miss the blessing of becoming the mother of your child. For where could you find a fair young woman whose womb is yet like anunplowed field, who would not want you to be the husband who tilled that field? Or who is the man so foolish as to bury his good looks in his own generation, selfishly stopping the line of posterity by remaining childless? You are the image of your mother at your age, and through you, I can recall the lovely youthful “springtime” when she was in her prime. And so will you,looking back through the windows of old age, see this reflection as your golden time of life. But if you do not care to be remembered, stay single, and let your image die with you.

Commentary on Sonnet 3:The poet has given us two powerful hints in the sestet (the last 6 lines of the sonnet). For one, the fair youth looks so much like his mother that he could be her reflection in a mirror. As previously mentioned, portraits of Henry Wriothesley and Elizabeth Tudor do reveal an astonishing resemblance,

31

particularly the portrait of Wriothesley (Southampton) in the Tower with his cat, and Elizabeth’s “Sieve Portrait” in which sheholds a sieve as a symbol of virginity. These portraits both showtheir subjects at a three-quarters angle, making the comparison an easy matter.

The second hint is that the Youth’s appearance calls to mind the “lovely April” of his mother’s prime — when she was in the full bloom of her womanhood. Elizabeth had just turned forty a month before Henry Wriothesley was born; she certainly would have been in her prime in her thirties. In his late teens and early twenties, Henry looked like his mother at the same age. These lines suggest also that the young queen made a lasting impressionon Edward De Vere when she visited the De Vere family in 1560, shortly after becoming queen. She would have been about 27 years old, young Edward about 10. With her red-gold hair and fair skin,her quick wit and personal charm, she dazzled him. He never got over his fascination with her.

Elizabeth cultivated the image of “The Virgin Queen” for several good reasons. Her subjects associated her with the Virgin Mary, asacred icon to both Catholics and Protestants, thus providing a symbolic religious and national unity. Her availability for marriage kept some of the crowned heads of Europe hoping to form an alliance with her, thus helping to keep her nation at peace bydiscouraging other alliances by Catholic nations. So if she did have a child or children, it would have had to be a closely guarded secret.

Other Sonnets From Father to Son

Sonnet 33 creates a powerful link between the events of Oxford’s life and the subject matter of Shakespeare’s poems. It contains suggestions of this agonizing father-son relationship. The puns on "sun" and "son," the metaphors of clouds and masks, seem to mix the joy of fatherhood with the pain of enforced separation. The birth of a love-child might bring great joy to a father who does not yet have a son for his legitimate heir. If the mother then gives up the child for adoption, that father might grieve deeply, having no hope that the son might be legitimized. Sonnet

32

33 captures the emotions such a man might feel.

Sonnet 33Full many a glorious morning have I seenFlatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye, Kissing with golden face the meadows green, Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy; Anon permit the basest clouds to rideWith ugly rack on his celestial face,And from the forlorn world his visage hide,Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace:Even so my sun one early morn did shine,With all triumphant splendour on my brow;But out, alack, he was but one hour mine,The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now. Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth;Suns of the world may stain when heaven's sun staineth.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 33:I have seen many a glorious morning beautify the mountaintops with the sun’s glow. I have seen the sun’s golden face kiss the green meadows, seen the pale streams turned to gold like a base metal transformed to a precious metal by a heavenly alchemy. But then the glorious morning permits the ugliest cloud to deface thesun’s heavenly face, hiding his visage from an unhappy world, letting him steal away to the west as if ashamed. Even so, my sun(son) on one early morning did shine on my forehead with triumphant splendor, yet alas, he was mine only for an hour. The region cloud has hidden him from me. Yet my love does not disdainhim for this, not even a little bit. Suns/sons of the world may become stained when their sovereign ruler becomes attainted.

Commentary on Sonnet 33 In the first quatrain, Sonnet 33 presents a breathtakingly beautiful picture of early morning. The metaphor of alchemy and the celestial imagery show a Rosicrucian influence. The sun is personified as a celestial ruler (roi soleil, or sun king) who glorifies the earth with a magic touch. But sometimes ugly cloudsscar the sun’s face, and so he hides his visage and steals into

33

the west unseen. Then the sun becomes symbolic of the “son” that Oxford sired with Elizabeth, splendid and triumphant. But alas, he saw the son for only an hour before the “region cloud” (regina, or Elizabeth) took him away and masked his identity. Still, Oxford loves his child in a way that cannot be diminished by absence. The last line suggests a proverb, “If gold rust, whatwill iron do?” If the ruler of heaven becomes stained with sin, luminaries of society (suns of the world) may also be subject to weaknesses.

Legacy of Poetry

Shakespeare's intention to leave a legacy of poetry, particularlyin this sonnet collection, is stated quite clearly in Sonnet 81. It appears to be addressed to the same person to whom the collection is dedicated -- that is, to "Mr. W.H." or “H. W.”-- and yet indirectly it challenges future generations to help the poet deliver on his promise to the dedicatee. The "eyes not yet created" must keep reading his poetry over and over until the truth can safely be told. The tongues of future beings must speakof the lives long since gone, thus making one immortal.

If we picture the poet as a man compelled to mask his true identity, a man who cannot leave his son any legacy other than his art (and even that art obscured by a pseudonym), these lines take on a special poignancy.

Sonnet 81 Or I shall live your epitaph to make,Or you survive when I in earth am rotten,From hence your memory death cannot take,Although in me each part will be forgotten.Your name from hence immortal life shall have, Though I, once gone, to all the world must die: The earth can yield me but a common grave,When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie.Your monument shall be my gentle verse,Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read;And tongues to be, your being shall rehearse, When all the breathers of this world are dead;

34

You still shall live, such virtue hath my pen,Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 81Whether I outlive you long enough to write your epitaph, or you survive me when I am buried, Death cannot bury memories of you, though all my personal qualities will be long forgotten. From this time forward, your name will live on, although my name will be lost to the world. I can expect no memorial, (only the grave of an ordinary mortal), but your tomb will be recognition in the eyes of men.Your monument shall be my gentle verse, which will be read over and over by new generations not yet born. And in the future, men's tongues will speak of you and recall who you were, after everyone now living and breathing has died. My pen is so powerfulthat it will immortalize you. Those who read my poetry aloud willbe most fully alive, their mouths (where breath is most meaningful) will speak your name and grant you a deathless fame.

Commentary on Sonnet 81:How paradoxical it seems that the poet himself expects to be forgotten, yet he confidently believes his poetry will immortalize his subject. This makes perfect sense, however, if weconsider the poem to be expressing the feelings of a father who cannot reveal his own true identity, who cannot acknowledge a certain natural son without bringing shame upon him, yet who wants desperately to give the only gift he can.

The Need to Conceal the Father-son Relationship

When Henry Wriothesley was born in 1573, Edward De Vere had a daughter (Elizabeth Vere), but no son. He was estranged from his first wife, Anne Cecil, having been taunted by certain enemies that she had been unfaithful to him while he was traveling in Italy (1575-76). Later he reconciled with Anne and had two more daughters, but the only son she bore him died in infancy.

Henry Wriothesley was a well-placed changeling child, accepted astheir own son and heir by the Second Earl of Southampton and his wife. Thus when the Second Earl died in 1581, young Henry became

35

heir to a title and an estate, assured of attendant privileges ofwealth and genteel education. If Henry’s biological father (the 17th Earl of Oxford) had suddenly appeared and claimed paternity,those titles and privileges would have been forfeited. The shame of bastardy would have tainted both father and son in this case.

Henry was already the Third Earl of Southampton when he came to Elizabeth’s court in 1590, at the age of 17. From the age of 8, he had been raised in the Court of Wards, living at Cecil House in London, and being educated by Lord Burghley, just as Oxford had been. When Lord Burghley began trying to negotiate a marriagecontract between his granddaughter Elizabeth Vere, and Southampton, young Henry hesitated, pleading that he was too young to marry, asking for a year’s time to make up his mind.

When Oxford learned who Henry Wriothesley was, he probably felt obligated to tell him that the bride Burghley had picked for him might possibly be his half-sister. It is not known whether Oxfordfavored the match, because there had been some question about whether Anne Cecil’s first child was his. He had accepted Anne’s daughter as his own when he reconciled with her in 1581, but he was never certain. Some critics have suspected that William Cecil, desperate to have a grandson securely placed in the aristocracy, impregnated his own daughter and faked her birthdatewhile Oxford was away. If that had been the case, the girl would not have been Southampton’s half-sister; they would not have had the same father. But only William Cecil knew the whole truth, andhe would never tell.

Oxford began to write the 17 sonnets urging the Fair Youth to marry and procreate, but the poet was not trying to promote a marriage with his own daughter Elizabeth Vere. Any chosen woman would do, according to the sonnets, for carrying on the blood line. Southampton did, in fact, decline to marry the 15-year-old Elizabeth Vere, so Burghley exercised the right of a guardian to punish his ward with an enormous fine of 5,000 pounds. This corrupt system of wardships enriched Burghley by putting young Henry (and probably other wards as well) deep into debt.

Why Couldn’t Oxford Acknowledge Henry as his Son?

36

Why couldn’t De Vere have acknowledged Southampton as his son andmade him heir to the Earldom of Oxford? For one reason, he was married to Lord Burghley’s daughter, Anne Cecil, and Burghley would have made powerful objections to having his daughter set aside for the sake of an illegitimate heir. It would also diminish Burghley’s influence with the Queen if she chose to legitimize Henry Wriothesley as her son and to make him a crown prince.

Sonnet 36 deals with the kinds of emotions that De Vere would have felt when forcing himself to separate from his son (“we mustbe twain”). He wants to protect his innocent son from any shame. The guilt must be borne by the father alone (and perhaps the mother), but not by the child.

Although some readers have interpreted Sonnet 36 as dealing with the breakup of a homosexual relationship, the sonnet expresses the thought that only one person in this relationship has sinned.In a consensual homosexual relationship between adults, each person would be equally sinful. The last two lines sound especially paternal – “Do not honor me in public as your father. Since you are mine, any good report of you will be an honor for me also.” Emphasis added in lines 9-10:

Sonnet 36Let 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, byme 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, Lestmy bewailed guilt should do thee shame, Nor thou with public kindness honour me, Unless thou take that honour from thy name: But do notso; I love thee in such sortAs, thou being mine, mine is thy good report.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 36 Let me make a confession -- that we must lead separate lives, although our love for each other joins us as if we are one. In

37

this way, the blots upon my honor will be borne by me alone. The love we have for each other is grounded in mutual respect, but when other people treat me with spite, I want to keep that meanness separated from you. That separation does not alter love's overall effect, but it does deprive us of the delight of being together. I may not ever acknowledge you as my son, lest myguilt over my much-regretted sins bring shame upon you. Nor can you honor me in public as your father, because if you do, you would detract from your own honorable name. But do not do this. Knowing that you are mine, I rejoice in any good report I hear ofyou as if it were an honor paid to me.

Commentary on Sonnet 36This deeply moving sonnet captures the pain of separation for twopeople who think it best not be seen together. Adherents of the homosexuality theory interpret this separation as between male lovers, but that seems unlikely. Homosexuality was a crime for both partners in Elizabethan England; both partners would have been considered equally guilty, and both could lose their heads. But the scenario in Sonnet 36 places the blame entirely on the shoulders of the poet-narrator. The shame of fornication was thatof the father, not of the innocent child born out of wedlock. Forthe Earl of Oxford to acknowledge Henry Wriothesley as his son would deprive Henry of his heritage in the Southampton line. Thusthe father (poet) makes the sacrifice that seems best for his son.

We may assume that Edward De Vere, from a distance, proudly watched his son Henry grow into manhood. Using the pen name "William Shakespeare" to conceal his identity, De Vere was able to dedicate his long narrative poem, "Venus and Adonis," to the Third Earl of Southampton in 1593, as if the young earl were merely a patron.

Yet the poet always addresses the Earl of Southampton as a peer in the aristocracy, not as a patron of superior rank. Sonnet 10 is often cited as evidence that the man from Stratford could not have written the sonnets to Southampton, because a commoner wouldnot have dared to address a lord by scolding him for selfishness.Nor would a commoner be so presumptuous as to say, “Make thee

38

another self for love of me.” On the other hand, fathers often doand say exactly that sort of thing.

Fathers also might tease their sons about their developing manhood. Sonnet 20 is a playful poem, making light of its subject. The word “passion” in line 2 means a love-poem, not the intense feeling we associate with love today. The “master-mistress” probably refers to the custom of young males playing the women’s parts in Elizabethan drama; seeing a young male in costume may have inspired the poem. If the young male was Henry Wriothesley, and the poet was Edward De Vere, then the poet mightwell expect his son to love him, but not in a sexual manner. Thatwould be reserved for girls.

Sonnet 20 A woman's face with nature's own hand painted, Hast thou, the master-mistress of my passion; A woman's gentle heart, but not acquainted With shifting change, as is false women's fashion: An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling, Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;A man in hue all hues in his controlling,Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth. And for a woman wert thou first created;Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting, And by addition me of thee defeated,By adding one thing to my purpose nothing. But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure, Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 20You have a woman’s face, naturally beautiful, as if you could be both master and mistress of my poem. You have a woman’s gentle heart, but you aren’t as fickle and changeable as false women are. You have eyes as bright as women’s eyes, yet you don’t roll them seductively as false women do. Your gaze transforms into gold any object upon which it fastens, as if you controlled the colors that attract men’s attention and amaze women’s souls. Nature probably first created you as a woman, but she fell in love with you as she was making you. By making one addition – a

39

penis that does nothing for me, but can give women great pleasure. Since Nature has thus marked you for women’s pleasure, I’ll settle for your love, and they can have the treasure of using your body.

Commentary on Sonnet 20: The expression “pricked thee out” has a double meaning – to mark a name in a list with a pin-prick, or tosupply a “prick,” the male sex organ. The fanciful personification of Nature falling in love with her own creation, like Pygmalion, seems to justify her changing her mind and makingher creature into a male by “adding one thing.” Sonnet 20 has been interpreted as a homoerotic poem, but those who disagree saythe poem clearly states that the poet will settle for non-sexual love, since Nature has made the youth heterosexual (for women’s pleasure).

Much discussion has centered on the line “a man in hue all hues in his controlling.” In the Renaissance period, hue could mean color, aspect, shape, appearance, or even “hubbub” as in “hue andcry.” There could be a pun on “hew” made from “HeW” of the name Henry Wriothesley,” but if so, the meaning of the pun is lost to us. The letter W was often written as two V’s, and V was interchangeable with U, so the initials HVV might be read alternatively as “HUU.” Another possibility, which I prefer, is that “hue” or “colors” could also mean “livery,” or the colors worn by servants of a lord. Since actors were entitled to wear the livery of their sponsoring noblemen, the young man who acts the part of a woman in a play could be a “man in hue (livery),” who could command the attention of others.

Not all the poems in the book of Shakespeare’s sonnets were addressed to the Fair Youth. Some of them were undoubtedly addressed to women, and some expressed personal reflections on the meanings of life and death. In the following chapters, we will see how four women in Edward De Vere’s life corresponded to those mentioned in Shake-speares Sonnets. Then we will explore a number of rival poets who were contemporaries of Edward De Vere.

40

* * * Chapter 4Elizabeth Tudor as De Vere’s great Love

Elizabeth Tudor, it is fair to say, was the first and the last great love of Edward De Vere. When he first saw her, he was an impressionable eleven-year-old, and she was a vibrant 29-year-old, with red-gold hair, hazel-brown eyes, and a zest for outdoorsports. She came with her retinue of courtiers to visit the De Vere family at Castle Hedingham, in Essex, a pleasant rural community fifty miles northeast of London.

Edward’s father, John De Vere, the 16th Earl of Oxford, had liveda secluded life in the Essex countryside during the oppressive reign of Queen Mary, but he rejoiced at Elizabeth’s succession tothe throne and eagerly offered to serve her. He carried the canopy at her coronation, a privilege allotted to the Earls of Oxford in their inherited role as Lord Great Chamberlain. Her visit in 1561, for four days in August, was filled with field-sport events that she loved: hunting, riding, falconry, archery, and lawn-bowling. The warm summer evenings provided an opportunity for her host to entertain her with the troupe of actors and musicians that he maintained. Young Edward was alreadyexcelling in sports, music, and poetry, so he had opportunities to impress the queen with his talents.

She was fluent in five languages, including Latin (which Edward was studying), and she intrigued young Edward with her love of Italian culture and literature. Her enthusiasm for drama and music was infectious; her love of word-play and repartee made every conversation a delight.

Elizabeth was equally impressed with Edward. From his earliest years, he had exhibited a keen interest in learning and a flair for poetry. Before the age of nine he had been admitted to Queen’s College at Cambridge. Poetry infused his family life, too. Two of his uncles had made innovations in English poetic forms before they met with early deaths. The best known was HenryHoward, the Earl of Surrey, who (along with his friend Sir ThomasWyatt), was credited for being the one who first developed the

41

Elizabethan sonnet form. The other uncle, Edmund Baron Sheffield,was much lauded in his day as a composer of music and sonnets, though apparently none of them have survived.

We do not know exactly when each sonnet was written, or when it might have been revised. Yet the beginning lines of Sonnet 18 suggest that the poem was inspired by a lovely woman. Whenever itwas written, it may have recalled those glorious summer days mademagical by the queen’s presence:

“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? Thou art more lovely, and more temperate. Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer’s lease hath all too short a date.

In this poem, Shakespeare uses a variety of images and metaphors – the summer lease, for example, comes from legal terminology, and the celestial imagery compares the sun to an “eye of heaven” but also to a face (“gold complexion”).

Sometimes too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimmed; And every fair from fair sometimes declines, By chance, or nature’s changing course, untrimmed.”

The poet uses the word “fair” to mean both a fair person (probably of light complexion), and a prettiness that declines over the years, either by chance or by the rule of nature that propels us steadily toward old age, like a vessel with untrimmed sails. So the poem has a logical argument, supported by examples of extremes in the weather. But the sestet takes an abrupt turn:

“But thy eternal summer shall not fade,Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st [ownest] Nor shall Death brag thou wander’st in his shade When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st.”

The couplet then wraps up the argument. How might the person addressed triumph over old age, declining beauty, and even death?Because a lover will always see the beloved as beautiful

42

(retaining the fairness that she “owns”), and literature can bestow immortality upon her, outlasting her mortal life. This beautiful thought is echoed in Shakespeare’s play “Anthony and Cleopatra,” when the soldier Enobarbus praises his queen by saying, “Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety.” Most scholars believe that the character of Queen Cleopatra was inspired by the personality of Queen Elizabeth.

By the 1590’s, the poet would have gained confidence in the immortality great literature can bestow, and even in his own reputation for poetic power, enough to boast in the concluding couplet:

“So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.”

Of course, such a poem might have been started at a youthful age but later revised and strengthened before being included in the published collection. Placed where it is, following the 17 sonnets addressed to the Fair Youth, some critics think Sonnet 18also addresses the young man, the “Fair Youth.”

But whether Sonnet 18 was written to a woman (his beloved) or to a man (his son), the poet’s prediction of immortalization rings true. The ending couplet makes good sense if we presume that the poet was Edward De Vere, because he alone among his contemporaries had the stature to expect his literary works to endure. Such a declaration made by a lad from a marketing town onthe River Avon, with little or no education, would have seemed preposterously arrogant and vain.

Although this first visit solidified his loyalty to and admiration of the queen, young Edward was content to worship her from afar. She was already in love, with a man she had known since childhood, Robert Dudley. During the reign of Elizabeth’s half-sister, Queen Mary, the queen had become fearful of a Protestant uprising and reacted by confining both Elizabeth and Robert to the Tower. After Mary’s death in November,1558, when they were released, Elizabeth immediately appointed Robert Dudleyas her Master of the Horse. Dudley, a fine horseman, took charge

43

of buying and training horses for Her Majesty’s stables. Althoughhe was married, he kept his wife Amy in a small country town while he stayed close to Elizabeth’s side. Elizabeth rewarded Dudley’s devoted service with gifts of property and eventually gave him the title of “Earl of Leicester.”

In July of 1562, Edward’s father died suddenly, leaving the 12-year-old with the title of the 17th Earl of Oxford. His mother remarried rather quickly, and Edward was sent to London as a wardof the court, to finish his education at prestigious colleges. InLondon, Edward had many opportunities to see the Queen and learn to love her.

While Edward was still a minor, Elizabeth appointed Robert Dudleyto manage the Oxford lands and estates. Her long-time advisor, William Cecil, had been appointed in 1561 to the lucrative position of Master of the Court of Wards. Thus two powerful people in the Queen’s court had the ability to profit from Edward’s estate, as well as to be his benefactors. Thus began a complicated set of relationships – part affectionate, part rivalrous -- that later would fuel the plots in several of Shakespeare’s plays.

At some time during Edward’s wardship, while he was living at Cecil House in London, Queen Elizabeth gave him a gift of Ovid’s Metamorphoses in Latin. Under the supervision of his Latin tutor, Arthur Golding, (who was also his uncle), Edward translated Ovid’s rollicking tales into English. Although the translated Metamorphoses was published under Golding’s name, the circumstances suggest that Edward did more of the translation. Hedid it to please the Queen, just as he later wrote comedies to please her based on Ovid’s tales.

Elizabeth showed an interest in Oxford’s education. She attended graduation ceremonies at Cambridge University in August, 1564, where Edward received a university degree at the age of 14 years and 4 months. Two years later, she watched as two of Cecil’s wards, Edward De Vere and Edward Manners (the Earl of Rutland, two years older than Oxford), were awarded the degree of Master of Arts. In 1567, Edward was admitted to the law school of Gray’s

44

Inn. Here he acquired the legal knowledge that a nobleman would need to manage his estates, a knowledge that still impresses lawyers who note the imaginative and accurate use of legal terms in his plays and poems.

While attending colleges and universities, Edward wrote comedies and poetry to entertain his classmates. He also continued developing his athletic skills in fencing, jousting, and field sports.

In May of 1571, shortly after his 21st birthday, he won chief honors in a jousting tournament against many competitors older and more experienced than he. His delighted monarch presented himwith a prize -- a tablet whose blank pages (tables) were bound bya diamond-studded cover. Now at the age of 21, Edward had all theattributes of a courtier – physical strength, dancing skill, refined manners, and a talent for witty conversation that soon made him one of Queen Elizabeth’s favorites.

He also made some enemies who resented his growing influence withthe Queen. Among these were Christopher Hatton, captain of the queen’s bodyguard, who hoped to win the Queen’s heart for himself, and two who opposed the Queen’s marriage to a Catholic Frenchman – Robert Dudley and his nephew, Phillip Sidney, who resented Oxford’s tolerance of French or other Catholic suitors and his support of the Queen’s right to choose her own husband.

The tablet given to Oxford by Elizabeth made an appearance in Sonnet 122, after the Queen had seen her gift in the hands of another person at court. Cleverly, Edward “turned the tables” by saying poetically, “I don’t need this gift to remind me of you; Ican never forget you.” The intensity of feeling in this poem musthave pleased Elizabeth a great deal:

Sonnet 122Thy gift, thy tables, are within my brain Full charactered with lasting memory, Which shall above that idle rank remain, Beyond all date, even to eternity:Or, at the least, so long as brain and heart Have faculty by nature to subsist;

45

Till each to razed oblivion yield his part Of thee, thy record never can be missed. That poor retention could not so much hold, Nor need I tallies thy dear love to score; Therefore to give themfrom me was I bold, To trust those tables that receive thee more:To keep an adjunct to remember thee Were to import forgetfulness in me.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 122The tablet you gave me exists as a vivid, lasting picture in my memory. It will remain there forever, or at least, so long as my brain and heart exist. Until each of these living organs has beenobliterated by time, your record will be secure in them. Nor do Ineed to fill tables with tallies to score your dear love. Therefore, I was bold enough to give them away and put a greater trust in those tables where I keep a memory of you. If you believe I need a memento to remember you, you must consider me forgetful. But you, I could never forget.

Another woman had entered his life by this time: Anne Cecil, the daughter of William Cecil, his guardian. She was a sweet girl, obedient to her parents in all things, but only 14 years old whenCecil arranged for her marriage to Edward De Vere. Though Edward eventually came to love Anne, he felt he had been trapped into this arranged marriage. His heart was set upon traveling in Europe, especially Italy, when he reached the age of his majority. He didn’t want marriage to interfere with his seeing firsthand the blossoming Renaissance that was rejuvenating Italian culture.

The wardship system in Elizabeth’s time was ripe for abuse. Theoretically, the guardian’s role was to oversee the education and ensure the well-being of a ward. But since a guardian had theright to choose a spouse for his ward, and wardships could be bought for this purpose, the ward was in a vulnerable position. Any ward who refused to accept a marriage offer negotiated by hisguardian could be fined an enormous sum, all of which would go tothe guardian.

Although William Cecil was a capable, loyal advisor to Elizabeth,he was greedy for power and wealth. In February of 1571, he

46

persuaded Elizabeth to make him a lord, so that his daughter Annecould be called “Lady Anne” and thus have sufficient rank to marry an earl. Elizabeth complied, naming him “Lord Burghley.” Then he demanded that Edward De Vere accept Lady Anne for a bride.

Edward at first rebelled. The wedding was planned for December, 1571, just before Anne’s 15th birthday, but he ran away. Later hewas persuaded to return and go through with the ceremony. We do not know what agreement Elizabeth and Edward reached, but it seems likely that the Queen promised to give him permission to travel abroad, even though she preferred to keep him close as an ornament to her court.

So Edward and Anne were married when he was 21 years old and she was 15. Immediately Edward began making plans for his tour of Italy, expecting Anne to stay at home with her parents. But Elizabeth delayed giving the license to travel until 1574, so Edward did not leave for the Continent until January 1575. William Cecil wanted an heir that would tie his family to the illustrious Oxford family, so he maneuvered to get Anne pregnant before Edward left the country. In October the couple stayed at Hampton Court, where Anne became pregnant. Their child was born in July of 1575, but rumors began to circulate that the child wasnot Oxford’s. William Cecil made such vigorous denials that he stoked the fires of gossip even further, an embarrassment that Edward could not forgive. When he returned from Italy in 1576, herefused to see his wife or her family, but took an apartment at the Savoy where he could consort with actors and other writers. Then he threw himself into the work of writing plays.

Elizabeth, meanwhile, was being pressured by Parliament to marry and produce an heir, or at least to name a successor. She was in a dilemma. To enter a union with one of her own subjects would seem to be marrying below her rank, but no foreign princes seemedentirely suitable, either. Her long-time lover, Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, had come under suspicion in 1560 when his wife, Amy Robsart, died under mysterious circumstances with a broken neck. Though technically free to marry Elizabeth, Dudley was disliked by large numbers of English citizens who feared he

47

had ambitions to be king of England, not just prince consort. Another courtier who adored Elizabeth was the handsome captain ofher ceremonial bodyguards, Christopher Hatton, who had caught thequeen’s fancy with his dancing ability. But he was not of the nobility, and his hopes of marrying above his station in life became a joke among other courtiers.

Several European nobles had sent ambassadors to explore the possibility of an alliance with the English queen -- Prince Eric of Sweden, King Philip of Spain, and the Duke of Anjou (later Alencon) in France. But since these were all Catholic, Elizabeth’s protestant subjects understandably feared the possibility of domination by a foreign power. Indeed, her former brother-in-law, King Phillip of Spain, had openly stated his desire to force the English people back into the fold of the Catholic church.

Religious strife had been mounting since the Roman Pope excommunicated Elizabeth in 1570, announcing to English Catholicsthat they should place loyalty to the Roman church over loyalty to their sovereign. The pope even said or implied that assassinating Elizabeth would not be considered a sin in the eyesof the church. Subsequent plots against Elizabeth’s life and her throne intensified the fears of her protestant subjects. And whenthe French government massacred 50,000 Huguenot Protestants in August of 1572, all Europe was outraged. Elizabeth astutely realized that her best hope of preventing France and Spain from uniting against her and subduing her country was to continue holding out the possibility of an alliance with her through marriage. She began to promote the image of herself as the VirginQueen, providing religious ceremonies, acting as head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.

The years of 1572-73 saw Edward De Vere become a rising star at court, arousing jealousy and anxiety in his rivals. He staged an elaborate entertainment for the Queen at Warwick castle, and she visited him for 6 days at Havering-at-Bowe while on one of her famous summer progresses into rural England.

48

The Christmas revels lasted from December 25, 1572, to January 6,1573. And on that blissful Twelfth Night, January 6, two people who were deeply in love cast off the shackles of duty, surrendered to each other, and consummated their love.

Everything seemed right at that moment, warm with the glow of intimacy and rich with satisfied desire. Edward was technically married to Ann, but Burghley had forced the marriage upon him, perhaps not even legally, since Edward’s wardship was supposed tohave ended when he turned 21 years old in April. And the queen would have the power to annul Oxford’s marriage, especially sinceit had not been consummated. Later Edward might have had second thoughts, but on Twelfth Night of 1573 he saw no conflict betweenlove and conscience.

Sonnet 151Love is too young to know what conscience is, Yet who knows not conscience is born of love? Then, gentle cheater, urge not my amiss, Lest guilty of my faults thy sweet self prove: For, thou betraying me, I do betrayMy nobler part to my gross body's treason; My soul doth tell my body that he may Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason, But rising at thy name doth point out thee, As his triumphant prize. Proud of this pride, He is contented thy poor drudge to be, To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side. No want of conscience hold it that I call Her love, for whose dear love I rise and fall

Paraphrase of Sonnet 151 Young lovers are not burdened by conscience, yet who knows whether or not conscience begins with loving and knowing another person intimately. So, my gentle adulteress, don’t be too quick to accuse me, because you may be guilty of the same faults. If, when you seduce me, I betray my nobler instincts by yielding to my body’s lust, my soul will claim to be dominant over carnal love. My flesh waits for no further reasoning, but being aroused by your name, rather points to you as a prize that proves the

49

triumphant power of love. Puffed up with vainglorious pride, he (my flesh) is willing to settle for being your drudge, standing up for you in your affairs of state, falling by your side in battle if need be. Don’t hold it to mean that I lack a conscienceif I call my love “love,” because for her precious love, I rise and fall.

Commentary on Sonnet 151Beginning with a profound question about the relationship betweenlove and conscience, Sonnet 151 ponders whether blame for the sins of the flesh accrues more to one person than another, then slides into a playful punning about the rising and falling of themale sexual organ. The concluding couplet declares that calling aloved one “love” does not show any lack of conscience, but simplyreveals the overpowering nature of the desire to love and be loved. Words beginning with “con” are also suggestive of the female sex organ, and the second line suggests “knowledge” in theBiblical sense of sexual intimacy.

Elizabeth must have wanted to marry Edward De Vere, especially after she learned she was carrying his child. But she had become dependent upon Burghley, now her Lord Treasurer. As Edward’s father-in-law, Burghley would surely have disapproved any thoughtof annulling his daughter’s marriage to Edward De Vere. So it is likely that he persuaded Elizabeth to give her child up for adoption, presumably for the good of the realm and to maintain her image as a single woman available for marriage to a prince. Burghley made the arrangements for the Second Earl of Southamptonto be released from prison in 1573 in order to raise Elizabeth’s child as his own.

In the summer of 1574, the lovers arranged a tryst at the resort town of Bath, near Bristol, where Elizabeth had traveled on one of her progresses. Probably this was the time when Elizabeth delivered the bad news to Edward. She declared that she would stick fast to her purpose, to make England a great world power, relinquishing any womanly desire she might have for marriage and family. Deeply hurt and disappointed, Edward learned that the flame of love cannot be easily extinguished. The last two poems

50

in the sonnet collection, known as the Bath sonnets, speak of a great sickness that cannot be cured by the mineral waters:

Sonnet 154 (excerpt).…..I, my mistress’ thrall,Came there for cure and this by that I prove, Love’s fire heats water, water cools not love.

But the depth of Edward’s pain seems best revealed by Sonnet 34, in which he chides his mistress for leading him on with false hopes, expresses his anguish over her betrayal, reproves her for trying to put salve on a wound that cannot be cured, but then forgives her when he sees her feminine tears:

Sonnet 34Why didst thou promise such a beauteous day, And make me travel forth without my cloak, To let base clouds o'ertake me in my way, Hiding thy bravery in their rotten smoke? 'Tis not enough that through the cloud thou break, To dry the rain on my storm-beaten face, For no man well of such a salve can speak, That heals the wound, and cures not the disgrace: Nor can thy shame give physic to my grief; Though thou repent, yet I have still the loss: The offender's sorrow lends but weak relief To him that bears the strong offence's cross. Ah! but those tears are pearl which thy love sheds, And they are rich and ransom all ill deeds.

However sad such an ending might be, this farewell could not be the end of their relationship, for Edward was deeply loyal to Elizabeth as his queen, and he could not just walk away. Nor could he criticize his sovereign’s behavior or accuse her of neglecting him. Edward, writing as Shakespeare, explores the complexity of their relationship in Sonnets 57 and 58:

Sonnet 57Being your slave, what should I do but tend Upon the hours, and times of your desire?

51

I have no precious time at all to spend;Nor services to do, till you require.Nor dare I chide the world-without-end hour, Whilst I, my sovereign, watch the clock for you, Nor think the bitterness of absence sour, When you have bid your servant once adieu; Nor dare I question with my jealous thought Where you may be, or your affairs suppose, But, like a sad slave, stay and think of naught Save, where you are, how happy you make those.So true a fool is love, that in your will,Though you do anything, he thinks no ill.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 57Being your slave, I must wait for your command to wait upon you. My time has no value except when serving you, so I have nothing to do but wait patiently until you require my services. Nor can Ibecome bitter at your absence, once you have told me to leave you. Nor dare I feel jealousy wondering where you are, or with whom, but like a sad slave, wait, and think of nothing except howhappy you make those who are where you are, enjoying your company. My true love and loyalty make a fool of me, because I cannot think ill of you no matter what you do.

Commentary on Sonnet 57Sonnet 57 has been interpreted as an extended metaphor comparing the speaker's romantic devotion to the enthrallment of a slave. Yet how much more meaningful it becomes when we assume it was written by Edward De Vere to his actual sovereign, whose double powers of royal rank and romantic love made him hers to command. If writing only to a mistress, the speaker would not need to restrain his jealousy or suppress any critical thoughts. But a loyal subject would never find fault with his monarch; in fact, those who spoke or wrote disrespectfully of the Queen could be --and often were -- punished severely. When Elizabeth banished any of her courtiers from court, they lived in idle disgrace until she permitted them to return.

Sonnet 58That god forbid, that made me first your slave,

52

I should in thought control your times of pleasure, Or at your hand the account of hours to crave, Being your vassal, bound to stay your leisure! O! let me suffer, being at your beck,The imprison'd absence of your liberty;And patience, tame to sufferance, bide each check, Without accusing you of injury.Be where you list, your charter is so strong That you yourself may privilege your time To what you will; to you it doth belongYourself to pardon of self-doing crime.I am to wait, though waiting so be hell,Not blame your pleasure be it ill or well.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 58May that god who first made me your slave, forbid that I should even think about controlling your times of pleasure or ask you toaccount for the hours you spend away from me. I am your slave, bound to stay as long as you wish me to. Since I am at your beck and call, let me suffer the imprisonment I feel when you are at liberty and absent from my sight. And let my patience, accustomedto sufferance, abide each restraint upon me, without blaming you for causing me pain. Wherever you wish to be, your role as queen is so powerful that you may plan your own time according to your own priorities. You even have the power to pardon yourself for any crimes you have committed. My role is merely to wait, howeverpainful that waiting might be, without resenting the pleasure youare having with others.

And indeed, pleasure with others was the Queen’s prerogative. Christopher Hatton, who was always hanging around making himself available to her, again became her dancing-partner and her bed-partner, though she never seriously considered him for a mate. Still, Edward felt humiliated to be replaced by a man he considered much inferior to himself. Robert Dudley was periodically out of favor and in again, but Elizabeth was furiously jealous when Dudley secretly married Lettice Knollys, arival she despised. In 1579 her name was linked in scandal with the French Envoy, Count Jehan de Simier, who came to carry on the

53

negotiations for a marriage between Elizabeth and the Duke of Alencon. Yet despite her own infidelities, she could vent tyrannical wrath on those men she considered her property, if they dared to prefer another woman to her.

* * * Chapter 5Dark Lady, Dark-Eyed Lady, and Black-hearted Lady

Was the mysterious Dark Lady who appears in Shake-speare's sonnets 127-152 really a brunette? Did she have dark skin, or merely dark eyes? Was more than one woman addressed by the various sonnets? We begin with a close examination of the first sonnet in the division known as the "Dark Lady" sequence, Sonnet 127.

Shakespeare's Sonnet 127In 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 slandered with a bastard shame. For since each hand hath put on nature's power, Fairing the foul with art's false borrowed face, Sweet beauty hath no name, no holy bower, But is profaned, if not lives in disgrace. Therefore, my mistress's eyes are raven black, Her eyes so suited, and they mourners seem At such who, not born fair, no beauty lack, Sland'ring creation with a false esteem. Yet so they mourn, becoming of their woe, That every tongue says beauty should look so.

Paraphrase of Shakespeare's Sonnet 127In former times, black was not considered fair (beautiful). Even if blackness had beauty, peopledid not call it beautiful. But now black has become the true heir, the successor to beauty, whereas the old standard of beauty is slandered, shamed as if it were illegitimate. Since anyperson's hand is now able to apply cosmetics that make the ugly

54

seem fair, any face can be made false by art. Natural beauty is no longer valued, but held in lowesteem if not in outrightdisgrace. Therefore, my mistress's eyes are raven-black as if dressed in black like mourners, feeling pity for anyone who was not born fair. This is a slander of God's creations, falselyvaluing artificial beauty over natural beauty. Yet mourning makesthese woeful eyes so attractive, that everyone will say "this is how beauty should look."

Commentary on Sonnet 127In Sonnet 127, the speaker (probably Shakespeare/Oxford speaking for himself) defends the color black, especially in the eyes of his beloved. He also challenges contemporary fads in standards ofbeauty which could lead gullible females to attempt creating an illusory beauty with cosmetics. Probably this poem was written toAnn Vavasor, a beautiful brunette who came to court when she was about 15 years old. Edward was attracted to her, although she wasyoung enough to be his daughter, and they had a love affair. Probably Edward wrote this sonnet to her, to persuade her that hefound her beautiful, even though the cultural ideal at the time was fair skin and golden hair.

The beautiful black eyes described in Sonnet 127 and elsewhere have led some readers to conclude that the lady addressed in thissonnet also had dark hair and skin, but that is not necessarily the case. Some of the sonnets were undoubtedly written to Queen Elizabeth, whose portraits sometimes show very dark eyes contrasting with red or reddish-gold hair. Sonnet __ for example,exclaims “In nothing art thou black save in thy deeds.”

Unfortunately, some readers have taken literally (in Sonnet 130) what was undoubtedly a satire against the standard of beauty imported along with the sonnets of the Italian poet Petrarch (Francesco Petrarcha) as the Renaissance spirit swept from Italy through the rest of Europe and England.

Shakespeare's Adaptation and Spoof of the Petrarchan Sonnet Form

55

To understand Shakespeare's departures from the Petrarchan or Italian sonnet traditions, we should examine at least one Englishpoem that employed Petrarchan conventions. In addition to the rhyme scheme and organizational division into octave (first 8 lines) and sestet (last 6 lines), these conventions included elaborate tropes to describe beauty -- lips like coral, eyes sparkling like sun on snow, fair skin as white as snow or alabaster, and hair like the golden wires in certain fashionable jewelry of the period. The mistress would seem to float like a Goddess when she walked. Her voice would be sweeter than heavenlymusic.

The English poet Sir Philip Sidney imitated this tradition in hissonnet sequence “Astrophel and Stella.” Writing as the fictional Astrophel, to the idealized Stella, Philip Sidney grants that hisStella's eyes are black, but in his Sonnet 8 he refers to her "fair skin and beamy eyes." Sidney probably based his “Stella” upon Queen Elizabeth, using the celestial imagery associated withthe Queen and the language of courtly love that she liked to hearfrom her courtiers. [Some scholars believe that Sidney’s “Stella”was Penelope Devereux Rich, but there is some doubt about that. More will be said about this in the chapter on Rival Poets.] A comparison of one of Sidney’s sonnets (Sonnet 9) to Shakespeare’sSonnet 130 will illustrate the humor in Shakespeare’s parody.

In Sidney's Sonnet 9, paraphrased below, he presents a dizzying array of metaphors, some of which seem overwrought and difficult to visualize. For example, if Stella's facial features are figuratively perceived as the front of a house with its windows being eyes and its mouth a door, how can she also be a whole person who peers out of the eye-windows and walks out the mouth-door? Obviously, since the comparisons are illogical, the reader mustn't push the analogies too far.

Philip Sidney's Sonnet 9Queen Virtue's Court, which some call Stella's face, Prepar'd by Natures choicest furniture,Hath his front built of alabaster pure;Gold is the covering of that stately place.The door, by which sometimes comes forth her grace,

56

Red porphir is, which locke of pearl makes sure, Whose porches rich (which name of chekes indure) Marble, mixt red and white, do interlace.The windowes now, through which this heav'nly guest Looks o'er the world, and can find nothing such, Which dare claime from those lights the name of best, Of touch they are, that without touch do touch, Which Cupids self, from Beauties mine did draw: Of touch they are, and poor I am their straw.

Paraphrase of Sidney's Sonnet 9Stella's face is comparable to the court of a virtuous queen, richly decorated by Nature with finest furniture. Her skin is like pure alabaster, covered with golden hair. The door is a gracious entrance, made of red porphir and secured by a lock of pearl. So her mouth is red and her teeth like pearls. Her cheeks are like the porches of this palace -- marble, mixed red and white. Her eyes are the windows through which this divine lady looks over the world, seeing nothing equal to her own excellence.The lights from these eyes are as valuable as gold measured by a touchstone, as precious as that which Cupid mined from Beauty's gold mine. They can touch my emotions without physical touching, controlling me as a wind blows a straw.

In contrast, Shakespeare's Sonnet 130 offers the antithesis of the idealized beauty. This spoof should not be taken as a literaldescription of the poet’s mistress, but as a playful way of satirizing the Petrarch imitators.

Shakespeare’s Sonnet 130My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun; Coral is far more red than her lips' red;If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun; If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head. I have seen roses damask'd, red and white, But no such roses see I in her cheeks;And in some perfumes is there more delight Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. I love to hear her speak, yet well I knowThat music hath a far more pleasing sound;

57

I grant I never saw a goddess go;My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground: And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare As any she belied with false compare.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 130My mistress's eyes do not gleam and sparkle as much as the sun does, and her lips are not really as red as coral. If snow-white breasts are the standard of beauty, then in comparison, my mistress has tan-colored breasts. If you compare your mistress's hair to golden wires, I'll compare my mistress's hair to black wires. You say your mistress has red and white roses in her cheeks, but I have seen roses, and I don't see any in my own mistress's cheeks. Her breath is not as delightful as perfume, and though I love to hear her speak, I can't truly say her voice sounds better than music. I haven't actually seen a goddess treading on air, so I can't compare a goddess to my mistress, whowalks on the ground. And yet, by heaven, I think my mistress is as rare as any woman you might falsely compare her to.

Commentary on Sonnet 130Shakespeare's burlesque employs exaggeration in combination with understatement for humorous effect, yet the argument is consistent and logically organized. Each idealized characteristicis named and then contradicted; the first four lines do this withfour traits (eyes, lips, skin, hair). The next four satirized traits (cheeks, breath, voice, and walking) take two lines each, all of which are summed up in the final couplet saying in effect,"my mistress is as precious to me as any creature other poets might fancy, and I do not need to exaggerate her charms to love her as she is."

Other Sonnets in the "Dark Lady" Series And Other Women in the Life of Edward De Vere

Sonnet 128 might have been written to any charming woman who plays upon the virginals, a keyboard musical instrument of the period. Playfully, the poet says he envies the keys that she touches, but he believes he would prefer the touch of her lips. Inasmuch as Queen Elizabeth did play this musical instrument,

58

Sonnet 128 may have been intended as an elaborate complement to her during the 1570’s when Edward was her favorite courtier.

Sonnet 128How oft when thou, my music, music play'st, Upon that blessed wood whose motion sounds With thy sweet fingers when thou gently sway'st The wiry concord that mine ear confounds, Do I envy those jacks that nimble leap,To kiss the tender inward of thy hand,Whilst my poor lips which should that harvest reap, At the wood's boldness by thee blushing stand! To be so tickled, they would change their state And situation with those dancing chips,O'er whom thy fingers walk with gentle gait, Making dead wood more bless'd than living lips. Since saucy jacks so happy are in this,Give them thy fingers, me thy lips to kiss.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 128When you, my inspiration (who is like music to me), play music upon that blessed wood (the Virginals), the motion of your fingers controlling the keys and wires to create harmony pleasingto my ears, I often envy those jacks that leap nimbly up to touchthe inside of your hand. Meanwhile, my poor lips stand blushing at the boldness of the wooden jacks, wishing they could reap sucha harvest. My lips, to be so lightly touched, would change placeswith the dancing wooden chips over which your fingers walk gently, making the dead wood more blessed than my living lips. Since the playful jacks seem to like this arrangement, give them your fingers to kiss, and give me your lips.

Commentary on Sonnet 128On the surface, this sonnet follows a convention of the lover wishing to be as close to his loved one as some inanimate object that she touches. Yet a second layer of meaning involves teasing sexual innuendo and bawdy word play. Jacks has the triple meaning of “knaves” (as in card games), wooden chips made to strike a wire when a key is pressed, and the male sex organ. Concord and confounds suggest the female sex organ (also called “cun” or

59

“cunt” in bawdy language). And the Virginals, which are harpsichord-like keyboards, make rather obvious puns on virginity. Professor Stephen Booth of the University of California at Berkeley expertly analyzes the language and the figures of speech, concluding that the image of a rigid musical instrument does not suit the poet’s purpose very well. Admittedlythe imagery is conceptually difficult (for instance, fingers and palms used interchangeably, and lips standing by). Also, the sentence structure is convoluted in the first 8 lines, creating achallenge for even a very determined reader. Yet for all its flaws, the sonnet does illustrate the poet’s technique of wooing with words, elevating the loved one to adore her, and making evenvulgar terms endearing when used in the service of Cupid.

Sonnet 129 deals with passion and remorse as a kind of irresistible madness. Lust drives men to satisfy their sexual urges, the poet says, but as soon as they possess their prize they suffer bitter regret and self-loathing. The ending couplet despairs of any help for this human condition: "All this the world well knows, yet none knows well / To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell."

Sonnet 129Th’ expense of spirit in a waste of shameIs lust in action: and till action, lustIs perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame, Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust; Enjoyed no sooner but despised straight;Past reason hunted; and no sooner had,Past reason hated, as a swallowed bait,On purpose laid to make the taker mad.Mad in pursuit and in possession so;Had, having, and in quest to have extreme; A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe;Before, a joy proposed; behind a dream.All this the world well knows; yet none knows well To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 129Lust in action creates a waste of spirit (sexual vitality) in

60

shameful activity. No sooner is lust acted upon than it causes disgust and guilt that makes a man despise himself. Lust drives men to hunt beyond all reason, and when they find their prey, it becomes an unreasonable hatred, as if a man had swallowed some bait deliberately intended to drive him crazy. He becomes mad in pursuit and equally mad when he gains possession. He goes to extremes in his quest to have what he craves. Once he has proven his ability to conquer, the bliss of conquest turns into deep regret. The joy of anticipation comes before the conquest, but only a dream remains afterward. Even when everyone knows the consequences, we don’t know enough to avoid the heavenly temptation that leads us into the hell of remorse.

Commentary on Sonnet 129

Commentary on Sonnet 1291581), would have been tempted to have extramarital sexual relations. Assuming Edward to be the speaker of the poem, we can interpret it as having been drawn from his experience. Although he seems to be referring to more than one occasion of tasting “forbidden fruit,” certainly his affair with Ann Vavasor in 1580-81 gave him cause for "a bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe."

Ann became pregnant in 1580, which infuriated Queen Elizabeth. Probably the queen was jealous of the much younger woman, seeing her as a rival for the affections of the Earl of Oxford, who was then in his early thirties. Ann Vavasor was still in her late teens, whereas Queen Elizabeth was in her late forties. Whatever Elizabeth’s motives might have been, Ann had disobeyed the rules of the court by getting pregnant. As soon as Ann’s baby was born,in March of 1581, Elizabeth had Ann and her newborn son removed to the Tower. Then she sent some men to locate Edward De Vere andalso imprisoned him. He was not released until June of that year,after he had satisfied Queen Elizabeth that he had set aside the income from some of his estates for the support of his son. Ann Vavasor named the boy “Edward Vere,” after his father, and required Oxford to support her as well as her son.

Edward's imprisonment along with Ann Vavasor and their newborn son in March, 1581, might have generated the range of emotions

61

revealed in Sonnet 133, which begins in anger and ends in a sigh of capitulation. If we assume it to be directed toward the Queen who was punishing the adulterers, the following interpretation seems worth considering:

Sonnet 133 Beshrew that heart that makes my heart to groan, For that deep wound it gives my friend and me! Is't not enough to torture me alone,But slave to slavery my sweet'st friend must be? Me from myself thy cruel eye hath taken, And my next self thou harder hast engross'd: Of him, myself, and thee I am forsaken; A torment thrice three-fold thus to be cross'd: Prison my heart in thy steel bosom's ward, But then my friend's heart let my poor heart bail; Whoe'er keeps me, let my heart be his guard; Thou canst not then use rigour in my jail: And yet thou wilt; for I, being pent in thee, Perforce am thine, and all that is in me.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 133May evil befall that person who has made me suffer so deeply. Isn't it enough to torture me alone, without enslaving my sweetest friend [Ann Vavasor] in your tyranny? You have alienatedme from my best self, and now you would take possession of my next self (my infant son), and you have banished me from your sight, so I have sustained three losses -- myself, my child, and my sovereign -- a torment three times threefold to be overcome. Imprison my heart in the steel-hard cell of your own heart, but let my friend's heart bail me out. Whoever keeps me in confinement, let my heart be a guard for his [yours]; then you would not be as harsh a jailer as you are now. And yet I know youwill, because I am pent up in your cage and enthralled by you. Ofnecessity, then, I am yours, and everything in me is also yours.

Commentary on Sonnet 133. The intensity of feeling in this sonnetsuggests that it was written in the heat of anger, made more painful by a sense of powerlessness. It fits perfectly with the known historical facts of Oxford’s having been imprisoned along

62

with his “sweetest friend” and their newborn child. It would havebeen especially galling for Oxford to be punished by a woman he has deeply loved, one who had taken other lovers for herself, yetwho had the power to prevent him from finding love elsewhere. He was powerless because of his oaths to serve his sovereign with complete loyalty, and also because he could not help loving her even when she mistreated him.

Ambivalence Toward Queen Elizabeth

The De Vere family was noted for strong loyalty to their sovereigns. For Edward, his family motto “true, nothing truer” meant a solemn obligation to be true (loyal) to his Queen. He loved his sovereign, just as most of her loyal subjects did, because she was a gracious monarch who evinced genuine love for her people. Yet he also loved Elizabeth as a woman, though his feelings for her were complicated by the master-servant nature oftheir aristocratic relationship.

Elizabeth was a fascinating woman, complex and clever, seemingly contradictory at times. She could be quick to anger when her generals or diplomats disappointed her, but she was also mercifuland willing to forgive. She had a reputation for keeping a tight grip on the royal purse strings, but she was generous to those who served her well. She was as strong a leader as her father, Henry VIII, but she could feign feminine weakness when it served her purpose. She made promises but also procrastinated in fulfilling them, thus greatly frustrating those who depended on her.

Because Elizabeth's life was in danger throughout her reign, the loyalty of her advisors was crucial. There were many subjects in her kingdom who believed that her mother's marriage to Henry VIIIwas not legitimate, because the divorce from his first queen was not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope added to the strife when he excommunicated Elizabeth from the Church of Rome in 1570, referring to her as a bastard, encouraging English Catholics not to show allegiance to their queen or even to England. This undermining from Rome precipitated a number of plots to remove her and place a Catholic monarch on the throne,

63

one of whom was Elizabeth's half-sister, Mary Queen of Scots. Even after Mary had been exiled from Scotland and Elizabeth had given her safe harbor in London, Mary continued to plot Elizabeth's overthrow and to proclaim herself the rightful queen of both England and Scotland.

Because Elizabeth had once been unfairly suspected of treason when her Catholic half-sister Mary Tudor was on England's throne,and because her own mother, Ann Boleyn, had been beheaded on trumped-up charges of infidelity, Elizabeth hated imposing a death penalty. Even after Mary Queen of Scots had been tried and found guilty of treason, Elizabeth procrastinated so long that William Cecil, her long-faithful adviser, tricked her into signing the death warrant.

The growing animosity between Catholics and Protestants necessitated constant vigilance, spying, and secretiveness. By having many suitors and holding them all at bay, Elizabeth could keep her beloved England from dissolving into warring religious factions. She became adept at flirting and playing the games of courtship, at times projecting a passionate nature, at other times seeming coolly distant.

It is fairly obvious that the "Dark Lady" sonnets refer to more than one woman. Several sonnets in the series, however, refer to unequal power relationships, a condition which implies that they either address or refer to Queen Elizabeth.

Sonnet 140 expresses the speaker's distress about being sworn to silence and thus unable to defend himself against slander. This sonnet, if addressed to Queen Elizabeth, asks her to be more understanding.

Sonnet 140Be wise as thou art cruel; do not pressMy tongue-tied patience with too much disdain; Lest sorrow lend me words, and words express The manner of my pity-wanting pain. If I might teach thee wit, better it were,Though not to love, yet, love, to tell me so—

64

As testy sick men, when their deaths be near,No news but health from their physicians know; For, if I should despair, I should grow mad, And in my madness might speak ill of thee;Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad, Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be.That I may not be so, nor thou belied, Bear thine eyes straight, though thy proud heart go wide.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 140 Be wise at least as much as you are cruel to me. If you press your disdain upon me too much, mysorrow might overcome my patience, leading me to break my vow of silence in order to gainsympathy for my pain. If you permit me to give you advice, I think it would be better, even if you don't love me, to tell me that you do. That is how a physician deals with a testy dying patient, telling him only good news about his health. For if I have no hope of restoring your regard for me, I would grow mad, and in my madness I might speak of your unkindness and your faults. This world has grown so bad about twisting falsehoods to appear true, that crazy people willbelieve anything they hear from crazy slanderers. That I may not go mad, and that your wordsmay not be proved wrong, keep your eyes focused on the straight path, even if your pride carriesyou far off the mark

Commentary on Sonnet 140The slander mentioned in Sonnet 140 probably refers to the slander against Oxford launched by Charles Arundel, Lord Henry Howard, and Francis Southwell. Ever loyal to his queen, Oxford alerted her when he learned of a plot against her life by these three Catholics who had formerly been highly regarded at court. Just before Christmas in 1580, he denounced his former friends, who were subsequently arrested. Desperate to save their lives, the traitors responded by accusing Oxford of a long litany of crimes, including treason, attempted murder, homosexuality, and

65

bragging about a certain intimacy with Queen Elizabeth. The charges were obviously false, but they were disturbing to Elizabeth. It troubled Edward, too, to think that anyone might believe such blatant lies about him, since his honor and good name had always meant a great deal to him. This must have been the occasion for Sonnet 121 “Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed…”

Sonnet 121'Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed, When not to be receives reproach of being; And the just pleasure lost, which is so deemed Not by our feeling, but by others' seeing:For why should others' false adulterate eyes Give salutation to my sportive blood?Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,Which in their wills count bad what I think good? No, I am that I am, and they that levelAt my abuses reckon up their own:I may be straight though they themselves be bevel; By their rank thoughts, my deeds must not be shown; Unless this general evil they maintain,All men are bad and in their badness reign.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 121A villain seems better off than someone he reviles, because when an innocent person is vilified, others may presume he is guilty and reproach him for being vile. The loss of other men’s esteem robs the innocent person of the honor he justly deserves. Such honor is determined not by our own feelings of worth, but by the way others see us. Why should the corrupted views and false ideasof my accusers distort the perceptions of my adventures in love? Why should spies who have more faults than I do criticize me, when in their opinion lovemaking is bad, but I think it is good. No, I am what I am, not what they say I am. They that accuse me of faults are actually listing their own. I may be straight although they themselves are crooked, so my deeds must not be judged by the immoral thoughts of dishonorable men. Such men see evil everywhere, thinking all men are bad (as bad as they are

66

themselves) and the worst of them will triumph over the rest of us.

Commentary on Sonnet 121:This sonnet expresses a familiar Shakespearean theme of the importance of honor, and the cruel effects of slander (compare this line from Othello: “who steals my purse steals trash . . . but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed”). This sonnet also presents the psychological insight that psychologists later labeled “Projection.” People often criticize other people for thevery same faults they themselves possess.

While doubts about the allegations against Oxford were clouding the atmosphere, someone whispered to Elizabeth that Ann Vavasor was pregnant, and Oxford was the father. Elizabeth’s wrath over this transgression assumed a particularly vengeful form, so it was difficult for Edward to know whether she had believed some ofthe slander or whether she was just acting out of jealousy and spite. In any case, she punished him severely. At this low point in his life, deeply discouraged, he might have penned Sonnet 29, “When in disgrace of fortune and men’s eyes.”

Sonnet 29When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes I all alone beweep my outcast state,And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries, And look upon myself, and curse my fate, Wishing me like to one more rich in hope, Featured like him, like him with friends possessed, Desiring this man's art, and that man's scope, With what I most enjoy contented least;Yet in these thoughts my self almost despising, Haply I think on thee, and then my state,Like to the lark at break of day arisingFrom sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate; For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

67

Paraphrase of Sonnet 29When I am down on my luck and suffering disgrace in the eyes of other men, I weep alone, feeling sorry for myself because my peers have rejected me. I bother Heaven with my hopeless prayers,but it does not hear me. I look inward with self-blame, and cursemy fate, wishing I had been blessed like some other man with better prospects, with handsome features like his, with the numerous friends he has. I envy this man’s artfulness, and that man’s range of abilities. I am discontented with what I usually enjoy most. Yet while thinking self-critical thoughts, almost despising myself, if by chance I think of you, then a marvelous change occurs. Like a lark arising from gloomy darkness to sing at daybreak, I feel like singing hymns at Heaven’s shining gates.For when I remember your sweet love, I feel so fortunate that I would not change places with kings.

Commentary on Sonnet 29This poem captures the deep feelings of loneliness and despair that a sensitive human being would feel when everything seems to be going awry. His discontent with what he enjoys most is probably with his writing. Yet the poet’s melancholy is deliberately countered by thinking of someone he loves, making him wish to sing praises to Heaven rather than being angry about his misfortunes. The loved one is probably Henry Wriothesley, theson whose love makes up for all the unhappiness the poet has experienced.

The young Henry Wriothesley also caught the eye of Ann Vavasor. The sonnets offer some evidence of a triangle when De Vere’s mistress captivated his 18-year-old son. One of their trysts tookplace in De Vere’s country seat when he was not there. This love triangle probably provided the impetus for Sonnet 41, in which heforgives young Henry for being tempted by Ann Vavasor, even though he reminds the youth that he has not behaved like a gentleman:

Sonnet 41Those petty wrongs that liberty commits, When I am sometimes absent from thy heart, Thy beauty, and thy years full well befits,

68

For still temptation follows where thou art. Gentle thou art, and therefore to be won, Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assail'd; And when a woman woos, what woman's son Will sourly leave her till he have prevail'd? Ay me! but yet thou might'st my seat forbear, And chide thy beauty and thy straying youth, Who lead thee in their riot even thereWhere thou art forced to break a twofold truth:-Hers by thy beauty tempting her to thee, Thine, by thy beauty being false to me.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 41When you are at liberty, free to do whatever you choose, you may commit petty wrongs while you aren’t thinking of me. This is to be expected because you are young and handsome, for temptation follows a person like you. You are a gentleman, so ladies would like to win you. You are handsome, which also attracts them to you. And when a woman woos, what man ever born can resist making love to her, or show bad manners by leaving her until her wish tobe conquered has been fulfilled? Even so, you might have thought twice before making your assignation at a house of mine, and you might chide your own good qualities from leading you astray. Theyhave led you to frolic even where you abused my hospitality, so you have broken faith with two commitments: hers, because your beauty tempted her to desire you, and yours, because you betrayedme by stealing my mistress from me.

In Sonnet 42, the poet forgives both of his loved ones, reasoningthat their affection for each other arises from their affection for him: “Loving offenders, thus I will excuse ye; / Thou dost love her because thou know’st I love her.” Then he rather cleverly reasons that everyone has gained from this triangle: hisfriend (young Henry), his lady love (Ann Vavasor), and paradoxically, himself also. “If I lose thee, my loss is my love’s gain,/ and losing her, my friend hath found that loss./ Both find each other, and I lose both twain,/ and both for my sake lay me on this cross. Yet here’s the joy, my friend and I are one; /Sweet flattery! Then she loves but me alone.” The

69

couplet makes sense if we understand that the “friend” is De Vere’s beloved son, who is “one” with him.

Commentary on Sonnets 41 and 42The light touch in these sonnets reveals the generous nature of the poet – a father who is always ready to excuse his son, and a lover who is not possessively jealous of his mistress.

Yet some of the poems show anger toward Ann Vavasor and resentment of her promiscuity (“the bay in which all men ride”). When she came to court with her aunt, she was about fifteen yearsold. For a while she was the mistress of Edmund Spenser, the fair“Rosalind” of some of his poetry (the “rosa” being the reversed last 4 letters of “Vavasor”). The Earl of Oxford would have been in his early thirties when Ann bore his child (whom she named Edward Vere), and young Henry Wriothesley would have been about eighteen. Oxford accepted his paternal responsibility to pay for Edward Vere’s upbringing and education. But later, when Ann Vavasor began living with a married man and had another child by him, the Earl objected to the unwholesome situation in which young Edward Vere was living, and tried to gain custody. The mother prevailed in the custody suit, however, thus securing her own livelihood through the child support money she received from Oxford. Knowing this, we can more clearly understand the bitter tone of Sonnet 67, where the poet says, speaking of his son (Edward), “Why should he live, now Nature bankrupt is/ Beggar’d of blood to blush through lively veins?/ For she hath no exchequer now but his, / And proud of many, lives upon his gains.”

Sonnet 141 is frequently included in anthologies and subjected tovarious interpretations. Yet it, too, contains a puzzle that seems more logical if we assume that Edward De Vere's experience is reflected in the poem. Some Oxfordians think it alludes to AnnVavasor, but it might be addressed to Elizabeth.

Sonnet 141In faith I do not love thee with mine eyesFor they in thee a thousand errors note;But 'tis my heart that loves what they despise,

70

Who, in despite of view, is pleased to dote. Nor are mine ears with thy tongue's tune delighted; Nor tender feeling, to base touches prone, Nor taste, nor smell, desire to be invitedTo any sensual feast with thee alone:But my five wits nor my five senses canDissuade one foolish heart from serving thee, Who leaves unsway'd the likeness of a man, Thy proud heart's slave and vassal wretch to be: Only my plague thus far I count my gain, That she that makes me sin awards me pain.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 141In truth, I don’t love you just for your physical appearance, formy eyes can detect a thousand flaws in your features. But my heart loves all of your features, even though my eyes might disapprove of your flaws, so my heart is happy to adore you. Nor are my ears delighted with the sound of your voice, nor are my tender feelings prone to groping touches. Nor would my other senses – taste, smell – experience a sensual feast when I am alone with you. But neither my five wits nor my five senses can dissuade my foolish heart from serving you. When my heart leaves,to become your proud heart’s slave and menial servant, my body merely looks like a man, but is like a hollow shell. I have learned one lesson, however. She that makes me sin gives me the pain of disease.

Commentary on Sonnet 141This poem is probably addressed to Elizabeth, swearing devotion to her even while acknowledging her physical imperfections. The logical structure of the poem divides conventionally into octave and sestet, but the couplet at the end seems curiously disjointed, according to interpreters Steven Booth and Helen Vendler. The poem shifts from addressing a loved one (thee), to athird person (she that makes me sin). If this sonnet was written while De Vere was confined in the Tower, being punished for getting Ann Vavasor pregnant, the ambiguity in the poem might express his ambivalence toward his queen. Assuming that the sonnet is addressed to Elizabeth, we would not be troubled by the

71

word "serving" where we might otherwise expect to see "loving." The “proud heart” would fit Elizabeth, as would the concept of being her “slave and vassal wretch.” Edward’s love for Elizabeth was inseparable from his duty to serve her. However, when the couplet swerves to the “she” in the third person, the poet is probably referring to Ann Vavasor, whose promiscuity may have helped to spread the “plague” of venereal disease.

Certainly Ann Vavasor had considerable influence on Edward De Vere’s life and thus on Shakespeare’s literary creations. She could be recognized as the “dark wanton” Rosaline in Shakespeare’s play Love’s Labor’s Lost. She was, indirectly, the resultof the lameness Shakespeare mentions in some sonnets, since her uncle, Thomas Knyvet, wounded Oxford in a swordfight he provoked to avenge her honor. And the deep ambivalence toward women that appears in Shakespeare’s work – admirable and lovable creatures, but not trustworthy – can be traced to his experiences with Ann Vavasor and Elizabeth Tudor.

Another woman who influenced Shakespeare/De Vere was his first wife, Anne Cecil, daughter of Elizabeth’s chief counselor and treasurer, William Cecil. Anne was seven years younger than Edward De Vere, only fourteen when her father arranged her marriage to him, the most desirable eligible bachelor in the kingdom, in 1571. During an 8-year estrangement from his wife, Edward fathered two sons by other women – one born in October of 1573, the other born in March, 1581.

Meanwhile, Oxford’s daughter by his first wife was growing up. AtChristmastime in 1581, some friends arranged for the young child Elizabeth to see her father, and also to convey a very touching letter to the Earl from his countess. She pleaded for a reconciliation, saying that she desired only to please him, assuring him of her constant love and faith. Possibly Queen Elizabeth played a part in persuading Oxford to return to his wife and try to beget a legitimate heir. Thus Edward De Vere and Anne Cecil De Vere were reconciled late in 1581, and they had three more children before Anne’s death in 1588. The theme of a faithful wife being wrongfully accused occurs in several of Shakespeare’s plays, notably Othello. Almost certainly, Sonnets 110

72

and 117 are addressed to Anne Cecil by her penitent husband, who pledges never again to be unfaithful.

Sonnet 110Alas! 'tis true, I have gone here and there,And made myself a motley to the view,Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear, Made old offences of affections new;Most true it is, that I have looked on truthAskance and strangely; but, by all above,These blenches gave my heart another youth,And worse essays proved thee my best of love. Now all is done, have what shall have no end: Mine appetite I never more will grindOn newer proof, to try an older friend,A god in love, to whom I am confined.Then give me welcome, next my heaven the best, Even to thy pure and most, most loving breast.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 110Alas, it is true that I have traveled here and there, making myself a clown in the eyes of others, destroyed my own best ideas, devalued what I should have treasured, turned new affections into old offences. It is especially true that I have been a stranger to truth and looked on it with unjustified suspicion. But I swear by all above, these cowardly acts have rejuvenated my heart, and by trying out worse loves, I proved that you are the best. Now all that is past, and I offer you my endless faith. I will never again test my appetite on newer proofjust to test an older friend, but will be confined to the worshipof that loving friend. Then give me welcome, my love who is best of everything under Heaven, even to thy pure and most, most loving breast.

Commentary on Sonnet 110Probably no woman in De Vere’s life would fit the description of steadfast love and purity, as described in Sonnet 110, except Anne Cecil. The Ogburns noted that the female characters of Ophelia, Hamlet’s betrothed, and Desdemona, Othello’s innocent wife, seem based on the sweet, forgiving nature that he saw in

73

Anne. All his life, De Vere felt deep regret for having distrusted and abused her. After the reconciliation, Anne gave her husband two more daughters and a son, but the son died in infancy. She expressed her grief over the loss of her son in a touching poem, and we can well imagine the grief of a father whose hopes for a male heir seemed to be repeatedly dashed. Anne died in 1588, while Oxford was away fighting the Spanish Armada. After carrying the canopy over Queen Elizabeth for her victory celebration in November, De Vere withdrew from court life to grieve quietly for three years.

But then a change of fortune brought happiness into his life. Elizabeth Trentham, one of Elizabeth’s maids of honor, fell in love with him. De Vere was then forty-one years old, several years older than his new love, who was probably about 30. Queen Elizabeth approved the match, and they were married in September,1591. Dorothy Ogburn believes that Sonnet 138 was written during their courtship, since it is playful and fits the situation perfectly.

Sonnet 138 When my love swears that she is made of truth, I do believe her though I know she lies, That she might think me some untutored youth, Unlearned in the world's false subtleties. Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young, Although she knows my days are past the best, Simply I credit her false-speaking tongue: On both sides thus is simple truth suppressed: But wherefore says she not she is unjust? And wherefore say not I that I am old? O! love's best habit is in seeming trust, And age in love, loves not to have years told: Therefore I lie with her, and she with me, And in our faults by lies we flattered be.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 138When my love swears that she is telling me the truth, I believe her, even though I know she lies, so that she might think me uneducated and unsophisticated in the subtle deceptions of the

74

world. Thus I think, vainly, that she thinks I am young, even though she knows my best days are past, so I simply assume that she is telling a little white lie. For both of us, then, the simple truth is suppressed. But she hasn’t really said she is unjust. And I have not really said that I am old. The best habit of lovers is to seem trusting, and no lover loves to have his agerevealed. Therefore, I “lie” with her, and she “lies” with me, and we are both flattered by these little deceptions.

Oxford’s marriage to Elizabeth Trentham seems to have been a happy one. They had a son, named Henry De Vere, who became the 18th Earl of Oxford upon Edward’s death in 1604. His widowed countess never remarried, but dutifully looked out for the interests of her son. The three other important women in his life, the three daughters from his first marriage, grew up and married well. Whether Edward wrote poetry for his daughters, we have no way of knowing. Yet the daughters must have felt close tohim, for two of them, along with their husbands, were the patronswho commissioned the publication of the First Folio of Shakespeare’s plays in 1623.

* * *Chapter 6Rival Poets and Lovers

Several of Shakespeare’s sonnets refer to a rival poet or poets. Numbers 78, 82, and 85 suggest that many poet-admirers are competing for the attention of the addressee. Many of the traditional interpretations assume that the Rival Poet of the sonnet sequence was competing for the favors of the Fair Youth, perhaps hoping for his patronage. But if Edward De Vere was the Fair Youth’s father, such interpretations would not stand up under close examination.

A more likely scenario is that the addressee was Queen Elizabeth.Because Elizabeth loved poetry and word-play, one way for her admirers to win her approval was to make her the subject of theirpoems. In Sonnet 78, her courtier Edward De Vere, writing under his pen name of Shakespeare, accuses the newcomers (“every alien

75

pen”) of emulating or copying him, because Elizabeth was the subject of many of his poems:

Sonnet 78 So oft have I invoked thee for my Muse, And found such fair assistance in my verse As every alien pen hath got my useAnd under thee their poesy disperse.Thine eyes, that taught the dumb on high to sing And heavy ignorance aloft to fly,Have added feathers to the learned's wing And given grace a double majesty.Yet be most proud of that which I compile,Whose influence is thine, and born of thee: In others' works thou dost but mend the style, And arts with thy sweet graces graced be; But thou art all my art, and dost advance As high as learning my rude ignorance.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 78:So often I have drawn my inspiration from you, making my verses more elegant, that now I am copied by poets everywhere, who want to sing your praises. Your eyes are so beautiful that they enablethe speechless to sing divinely, and even the ignorant can fly aloft in your presence. Those learned poets who have already flown high, now can soar even higher because they benefit a second time from your grace. Yet you can be most proud of the poetry I write to you, because my poems were born from the inspiration you provide. Other poets may superficially adorn their work and grace your virtues with their art. But you are thesole reason for my art, and you bring forth the best in me, as ifyou were bringing an ignorant person into the light of higher learning.

Commentary on Sonnet 78:The Queen was famous for her beautiful dark eyes, which the poet says could inspire even a speechless person to sing her praises, and elevate even an unschooled person to unsuspected heights. Theimage of adding feathers to the wings of a bird evokes a folk

76

tale about a crow who wanted to make an impression on others, so he collected colorful feathers of other birds to adorn his wings.The graciousness of the Queen in accepting any of her subjects’ poetry, even those efforts that were poor imitations of Petrarch or other European poets, makes her doubly majestic, in the poet’sview.

The sestet of Sonnet 78 can be paraphrased as a plea for the Queen to recognize genuine affection in Shakespeare/Oxford’s poems, because her personality and influence are the sole source of his art, in contrast to the superficiality of other poets’ work. She graces their art with her sweet graces, but she is the very essence of Shakespeare’s art. She brings out the best in him, causing him to advance his artistry as far as the distance goes from ignorance to profound learning.

In other words, Elizabeth has often been his inspiration, like the Muse Erato to whom poets appeal for assistance in their creative art. But when strangers (every alien pen) began writing verses in praise of the Queen, she was flattered. Although De Vere was annoyed with the other poets, he persisted in his own devotion to his sovereign.

Poets often used celestial imagery or mythological figures to describe Elizabeth: she was associated with the sun, the stars, and the moon (especially the moon goddesses Diana and Cynthia). Edmund Spenser, for example, wrote “The Faerie Queen” with Elizabeth in mind. Walter Raleigh penned the epic “The Ocean’s Love for Cynthia” when he was vying openly for the Queen’s favor.Philip Sidney’s sonnet sequence “Astrophel and Stella” used the celestial symbol of the star (Stella) and star-lover (Astrophel or Astrophil). [Note: some critics believe that Sidney’s Stella was Penelope Devereux, who became Lady Rich, because one poem in his posthumous publication punned on the name “rich.” But the romance between Philip and Penelope was neither deep nor sustained. His need to get back into the good graces of his Queenwas a far greater motivation, after he had been banished from hercourt for two years.]

George Chapman as Proposed Rival Poet

77

George Chapman, a poet much admired for his translation of the Greek poet Homer, has been mentioned as a possible rival of the Stratford resident, Will Shakspere, but no connection between these two has been substantiated. Chapman was, however, connectedto an inner circle of poets led by Walter Raleigh, and he participated in Edward De Vere’s group known as “Euphuists,” whose mission was to enrich the English language with borrowings from other languages and metaphors from the classics of the European world. Chapman, regarded by many as a pedantic poet and a smug academic, is probably the poet with the “learned’s wing” alluded to in Sonnet 78.

Charlton Ogburn, Jr., writing in the 1950s, championed the cause of Edward De Vere as the true author using the pen name “Shakespeare.” Ogburn, too, thought the “rival poet” was George Chapman. Ogburn quotes a verse in a play by Chapman describing Oxford as "the most goodly fashion'd man I ever saw." This compliment, he says, shows Oxford at age 26 in the eyes of one "who was in all probability the rival poet of the sonnets."

Ogburn was following the lead of Arthur Atcheson, whose 1922 treatise claimed to have proof that the Rival Poet was none otherthan George Chapman. Yet Atcheson's theory was based on the supposition that the Stratford man Will Shakspere was the poet-playwright William Shakespeare, and that Chapman bore some animustoward Will Shakspere. Such speculation has led down many wrong paths, as if the readers and scholars had been climbing the wrongmountain and, having no reliable map or compass, set themselves to classifying the flora and fauna of the apocryphal territory.

A Bunch of Rivals for the Queen’s Favor

In Sonnet 82, addressed to Queen Elizabeth, the octave presents excuses for her apparent fickleness, but in the sestet, Shakespeare/De Vere deplores the excesses of other poets, punningon his own name to distinguish “truth” from mere rhetorical flourishes:

Sonnet 82I grant thou wert not married to my Muse, And therefore may’st

78

without attaint o'erlook The dedicated words which writers use Oftheir fair subject, blessing every book. Thou art as fair in knowledge as in hue, Finding thy worth a limit past my praise; And therefore art enforced to seek anew Some fresher stamp of thetime-bettering days. And do so, love; yet when they have devis'd,What strained touches rhetoric can lend, Thou truly fair, wert truly sympathiz'd In true plain words, by thy true-telling friend; And their gross painting might be better usd Where cheeksneed blood; in thee it is abusd.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 82I admit that my Muse and I had no claim upon you or exclusive contract; therefore no one can find fault with you for accepting the works that other writers have dedicated to you, blessing their books with the mention of your name. You are as superior inknowledge as you are fair in complexion. Your worth is so great that my praise cannot do it justice; therefore you are forced to seek younger poets with fresher words. And do so, my Love, yet after the others have devised their strained rhetorical flourishes, you will see that you who are truly fair need no embellishments; you were truly understood in the true plain wordswith which I praised you. Let other poets find subjects that needcolorful cosmetics, but to paint you with such artificial means is an abuse of the poet's art.

Commentary on Sonnet 82Because Elizabeth was not “married” or committed to one poet only(symbolized by his Muse, or inspiration), it is no disgrace for her to survey and approve the words with which writers dedicate their books to her. The fifth line also bears closer examination.Elizabeth was “fair” in complexion, with reddish-blonde hair. Shewas also famous for the depth and breadth of her knowledge, having had the best tutors available in England in the 16th century, being able to read and write in five languages. Because her worth was beyond any ordinary estimate of value, a poet wouldbe challenged to find new ways of expressing his admiration. Whenan older poet-admirer has exhausted his supply of laudatory words, the Queen would understandably seek “some fresher stamp”

79

of the newer generation, who are still enjoying the best days of their lives.

An abrupt change of direction at the sestet grants permission – “And do so, love.” Yet it makes the prediction that she will be disappointed when she sees the strained rhetorical touches and “gross painting” of the neophytes. Several variations of “truth” are recognizable as puns on the author’s name, Vere, which means “truth” (as in “verity, very, verify” ).

Thou truly fair, wert truly sympathiz’d In true plain words, by thy true-telling friend.

Walter Raleigh as Rival Poet

Another rival poet is singled out in Sonnets 79, 80, 83, and 86. David L. Roper makes a persuasive case that this poet is Walter Raleigh. Roper points out that Edward De Vere, following the death of his first wife in 1588, went into semi-seclusion for three or four years when Raleigh was in his ascendancy. But the rivalry must have come earlier, perhaps during the early 1580’s when De Vere was being slandered by his former Catholic friends and discredited by his fatherin-law, Lord Burghley. His imprisonment by the Queen, ostensibly for having an illegitimate son with Ann Vavasor in 1581, seemed especially vengeful, leavingDe Vere hurt and angry. He turned his attention away from the court and concentrated on his writing, feeling “in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes.” Later in 1581 he reconciled with his first wife and tried to beget a legitimate heir. But even while his increasing affection for his countess was growing into true love and respect, he still yearned for Elizabeth’s approval. A plague in London in 1582 may also have contributed to his withdrawal from court life.

It was about that time that Raleigh swooped into the English court, offering the Queen a generous share of treasure he had pirated from Spanish ships in 1580-81, overwhelming her with his proud, swashbuckling manner and his deft way with words. By 1582-83, Raleigh was widely acknowledged to be the Queen’s favorite.

80

She gave him a house in London, called Durham House, and she knighted him in 1585.

In Sonnet 79, Shakespeare/De Vere writes of reluctantly giving uphis former place in the Queen’s favor to another poet (presumablyRaleigh). But even as he acknowledges Raleigh’s talent, Shakespeare/De Vere cleverly plants doubts about his rival’s sincerity. The second quatrain puts this idea forth. It is addressed to Queen Elizabeth, whose “lovely argument” means the theme of the sonnet:

I grant, sweet love, thy lovely argumentDeserves the travail of a worthier pen;Yet what of thee thy poet doth inventHe robs thee of, and pays it thee again. [lines 5-8]

In other words, although the Queen deserves all the work done forher by a worthy poet, that poet merely reflects upon the virtues and beauty that reside in her. Therefore, she need not thank him for what he says, or feel obligated to him, “for what he owes thee, thou thyself dost pay.”

Roper’s case for Raleigh as a Rival Poet seems especially strong in Sonnet 86, with its reference to the “proud full sail” of a ship seeking treasure (the Queen), making the poet tongue-tied with awe:

Sonnet 86Was it the proud full sail of his great verse, Bound for the prize of all-too-precious you, That did my ripe thoughts in my brain inhearse, Making their tomb the womb wherein they grew? Was it his spirit, by spirits taught to write Above a mortal pitch, that struck me dead? No, neither he, nor his compeers by night Giving him aid, my verse astonished.He, nor that affable familiar ghostWhich nightly gulls him with intelligence, As victors of my silence cannot boast;I was not sick of any fear from thence:

81

But when your countenance filled up his line, Then lacked I matter; that enfeebled mine.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 86Was it a sea-captain whose poetry is like a ship under full sail,looking for treasure (the precious love of you, his Queen), who left me speechless? Was it he that locked my mature thoughts intomy brain to die there, in the place where they were born? Was it his spirit, taught by a divine spirit to write heavenly verses, that killed my ability to write? No, neither he nor his poet friends, who gather at night to help him, stunned me into silence. Not he, nor the friendly spy that comes to him at night giving him deceptive information can claim victory for rendering me silent. I had no fear of them, but when he praised your beautyin his lines, then I seemed unable to match his poetic powers.

Commentary on Sonnet 86In Durham House, his London home, Raleigh convened a group of poets that were known as “The School of Night,” which included poets George Chapman, Philip Sidney, Fulke Greville, Christopher Marlowe, and Matthew Roydon, as well as the astrologer Thomas Harriot, among others. Clearly, Oxford did not fear any competition from them. The spirit that was taught by spirits to write could refer to Chapman, whose translation of Homer seemed to Oxford to be divinely inspired. The “affable familiar ghost” may have referred to Matthew Roydon, a spy for Walsingham’s Secret Service who kept Raleigh informed of events at court, and who was suspected of authoring (under a pseudonym) “Willobie His Avisa,” a satire aimed at Henry Wriothesley. But Raleigh did havepoetic powers, and when he turned his talents to the praise of Elizabeth, her countenance filled his lines, leaving Oxford feeling that he might be overmatched. The word “countenance” has a double meaning: it can mean her face, or her approval.

Queen Elizabeth gave pet names to her courtiers and lovers: she called Oxford her “Turk” (for his warrior skills); she called herFrench suitor, the Duke of Alencon, her “Frog,”; and Walter Raleigh’s name she punned as “Water.” Raleigh turned this pun into the metaphor of “ocean” in his poem “The Ocean’s Love for Cynthia,” dedicated to Queen Elizabeth. Cynthia, of course, is

82

the Moon Goddess, who controls the ebb and flow of ocean tides. Elizabeth was indeed controlling, and when she discovered that Raleigh had secretly married Bessie Throckmorton, she was furious. By 1592, when Raleigh’s son was born, he had fallen out of grace with the Queen.

While Raleigh was the favorite, however, Oxford stayed in the background. Elizabeth had awarded Oxford an annual grant of 1,000pounds, beginning in 1586, for “services to the realm.” This enabled him to maintain a company of actors who produced two plays a year for the court. After that date Oxford did not publish poetry in his own name, and none of his plays were published in his name. Thus he became “dumb” in another sense, which would seem to explain the defensiveness in Sonnet 83. Othercritics and scholars have thought this poem was addressed to Henry Wriothesley or Ann Vavasor, but it becomes more meaningful if we consider it written by Oxford to Elizabeth, explaining his “silence” during the years when another poet (or poets) paid her elaborate compliments.

Sonnet 83I never saw that you did painting need,And therefore to your fair no painting set; I found, or thought I found, you did exceed The barren tender of a poet’s debt:And therefore have I slept in your report, That you yourself, being extant, well might show How far a modern quill doth come too short, Speaking of worth, what worth in you doth grow. This silence for my sin you did imputeWhich shall be most my glory being dumb; For I impair not beauty being mute,When others would give life, and bring a tomb. There lives more life in one of your fair eyes Than both your poets can in praise devise.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 83:I never thought you needed to paint your face with cosmetics, andtherefore I added no rhetorical enhancements to depict your fair beauty in words. I thought your true value exceeded the

83

inadequate amount of tribute any poet might pay to you. And therefore I have not been as attentive as some other poet might be, so that your living excellence might show how his quill pen cannot do justice to the worth you have, which is still growing. You have interpreted my silence as sinful negligence, yet I am most honorable when I say nothing. For in being mute, I do not impair your beauty, whereas others try to enliven your portrait, but their efforts fall flat. There is such liveliness in you, that even one of your fair eyes contains more life than both of your poets together (myself and my rival) can devise for praisingyou.

Commentary on Sonnet 83Shakespeare has commented many times on the futility of “painting” to simulate youthful beauty, yet Elizabeth was well known for her vanity and her use of cosmetics to appear more youthful. The real person, however, is so vibrant that mere wordsin praise of her seem hollow or artificial. He seems to be answering some kind of accusation that he has not written any poems to her lately, and he may indeed have been sulking quietly while his rival or rivals basked in the limelight. In relating this poem to the life of Edward De Vere, we might conclude that when Elizabeth granted his thousand-pound annuity in1586, he promised not to use his own name on his work, lest the general public detect his relationship to the Queen.

Interestingly, Oxford’s retreat into anonymity corresponds almostexactly to the period known traditionally as the “lost years” of William Shakespeare – 1586 through 1592. Since Will Shakspere of Stratford was 14 years younger than Edward De Vere, he would havebeen only 16 or 17 years old when Raleigh was in the height of favor at court. And he would not have had the number of rivals orthe kind of rivals that contended with the 17th Earl of Oxford inthe decades of the 1580’s and 1590’s.

George Gascoigne and Others as Rival Poets

Poetic rivalry with a former classmate, George Gascoigne, peaked in 1576 when Queen Elizabeth named Gascoigne as Poet Laureate of England, an honorary but unofficial post. Three years earlier,

84

Oxford had included some of Gascoigne’s verses, along with some of his own, in a collection titled A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres and subtitled “Bound up in one small Poesie.” The word poesie (also spelled posy) meant a nosegay or bouquet. Or it could mean “poeticimagination.” Here it was a pun also meaning “a motto or brief sentiment” which was used as a substitute for the poet’s name. Gascoigne, not being a nobleman, used his own name on his verses,but Oxford used the posy “Meritum petere, grave,” and the verses attributed to Christopher Hatton used the posy “Felix Infortunatus.” Both posies were known at court, and Oxford further revealed his authorship by including in that volume a poem containing a cipherof his name “Edward De Vere.” Oxford poked fun at Hatton using the posy “Fortunatus Infoelix” in a collection by Richard Edwards, A Paradise of Dainty Devices, published in 1576 following Richard’s death in 1566. Oxford lampooned Hatton for his long-standing affair with a “high born lady” who would have been recognized by courtiers as the Queen. In 1576, when Oxford was away, Hatton arranged for a revised edition of Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, subtitled “The Posies of George Gascoigne.” Thus Gascoigne received credit for all the poems in the anthology, including sixteen of the youthful poems by Oxford.

Gascoigne, in dedicating this new edition to the Queen, spoke allegorically of “two sworn brethren which long time served Diana[moon goddess], called Deep Desire and Due Desert, which Diana separated by turning the first one into a laurel tree. We may assume that Due Desert referred to Oxford, who did indeed deserve the honor. Later he wrote about this betrayal in a poem entitled “Song: The Forsaken Man,” signed with his own initials, E. O., for “Edward Oxenford.” The poem is too long to quote here, but four lines will give a sense of the theme: “A crown of bays shallthat man wear/ That triumphs over me;/ For black and tawny will Iwear,/ Which mourning colours be.” The rivalry with Gascoigne seems to have been short-lived, but the rivalry with Hatton became bitter, prolonged, and malicious.

Katherine Duncan-Jones, editor of the fine critical edition The Arden Shakespeare, names several other plausible candidates for the

85

rival poet (John Davies of Hereford, Samuel Daniel, Ben Jonson). She strongly advocates her own favorite, William Herbert, Earl ofPembroke, a nephew of Philip Sidney and a dedicatee of the First Folio. Yet her assumptions, like those of Atcheson, are based on the Stratfordian time-frame of 1564-1612. Sidney himself should be considered a rival poet, not only because his sonnet sequence was published prior to Shakespeare’s (leading some scholars to the questionable conclusion that Sidney’s work inspired Shakespeare’s), but because Philip Sidney was a rival of Edward De Vere all his life.

Philip Sidney as the Rival of Edward De Vere

Philip Sidney (1554-1586), four years younger than Edward De Vere, was his rival in school, at the court of Queen Elizabeth, in the courtship of Anne Cecil, and in the writing of sonnets. Philip was the nephew of Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, the courtier most favored by Queen Elizabeth I in the early yearsof her reign. He was the son of Sir Henry Sidney, Elizabeth's governor of Ireland, and Lady Mary Sidney, who had served the young queen as a lady in waiting during her bout with smallpox.

After some years of private tutoring and attendance at a staunchly Protestant school in Shrewsbury, Philip came to court as a ward of William Cecil, Elizabeth's chief counselor, to complete his education and be trained to serve as a courtier to the queen. He was admitted to the law school Gray's Inn in 1567, where he became a classmate of Edward De Vere. Looney reports on a poetic duel of sorts, probably during the revels at Gray's Inn in 1568. Edward, then 17 years old, wrote a stanza entitled "WereI a King," that showed the marks of a craftsman even at that young age.

"Were I a king I might command content,Were I obscure unknown would be my cares, And were I dead no thoughts should me torment, Nor words, nor wrongs, nor love, nor hate, nor fears. A doubtful choice of three things one to crave, A kingdom or a cottage or a grave."

86

Looney notes that Philip's rejoinder, though considered a "sensible reply," shows no originality but simply twists the words and phrases of the original stanza into an affront:

"Wert thou a king, yet not command content, Since empire none thy mind could yet suffice, Wert thou obscure, still cares would thee torment, But wert thou dead all care and sorrow dies. An easy choice of three things one to crave, No kingdom nor a cottage but a grave."

Later, Edmund Spenser would cast the two poets as antagonists in a rhyming-match in his Shepheardes Calendar (1579), with the character “Perigot” representing Philip Sidney, and "Willie" representing Edward De Vere. Edward would also have occasion to accuse Philip of borrowing from other poets' works, aping Petrarchan conventions to a fault, and plagiarizing some of his own verses. Shakespeare, too, satirized in drama and verse the affected mannerisms and veneer of courtesy that many courtiers and critics would identify with Philip Sidney.

Edward was Philip's senior not only in years, but also in rank, asituation which rankled Philip when he wanted to challenge Edwardto a duel following a famous quarrel at a tennis court. Accordingto Fulke Greville, Philip's friend and biographer, Philip became indignant when the Earl of Oxford ungraciously refused Sidney’s request to use the court where Oxford was playing. Conscious of French visitors nearby, Philip felt it necessary to make a scene.The Earl retorted by calling him a "puppy," and the two might have come to swords' points if the Queen had not called Philip toher side and instructed him in the duties of a courtier and the respect due to personages of higher rank.

During the visit of the French ambassadors, Edward and Philip found themselves in opposite camps regarding a proposed marriage between Queen Elizabeth and the French Duke of Alencon. Philip allied himself with his uncle, Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, who opposed the match because he himself hoped to marry Elizabeth and become Prince Consort. Edward, on the other hand, had been sent to France by Elizabeth, traveling under a

87

pseudonym to gather information about the duke's reputation and also to gauge the popular attitude of the French citizenry towardProtestants. Edward disliked Leicester, whose power and influenceover Elizabeth had made him arrogant and manipulative. Leicester's first wife, Amy Robsart, had died in 1560 under suspicious circumstances, commonly believed to be murder. WilliamCecil, the Queen's Lord Treasurer and most trusted adviser, confided to a Spanish ambassador that he feared for his queen andher kingdom if she were to marry Leicester, unpopular as he was among his countrymen.

At the urging of two people that Philip "felt obliged to obey," (his uncle, the Earl of Leicester, and Francis Walsingham, head of the Queen's Secret Service), he wrote a letter to Queen Elizabeth stating his opposition to her marrying a "Papist and a foreigner." He pointed out that Elizabeth's strongest supporters were the Protestants of her realm, who probably would feel alienated if she married a Catholic. He also voiced objections tothe Duke personally and to his family, describing them as unscrupulous connivers and murderers. Furious at his impudence, Elizabeth barred Philip from her court. He spent the time of his banishment living with his sister Mary, Countess of Pembroke, trying to improve his poetic techniques and writing his dull work"Arcadia," dedicated to her. Possibly during that year he also wrote some of the sonnets that later appeared in "Astrophel and Stella." He was back in the Queen's good graces within a year or two.

The rivals Edward and Philip had also had been in competition over Anne Cecil, the daughter of Sir William Cecil. Anne had known them both for several years during their childhood and probably regarded them in a sisterly way. When Anne was 13 years old (1569), her father opened negotiations with Sir Henry Sidney for Anne's marriage to Philip, who was then 17. Philip had slender prospects for wealth, having inherited family debts, but it appeared that he would be the heir of his childless uncle Robert Dudley, who was becoming well connected and well rewarded for his services to the Queen. Sir William Cecil, who was also

88

profiting from the largesse of the Queen, was willing to offer a substantial dowry to make a good match for his daughter Anne.

But in 1571 William Cecil set his sights higher. The Earl of Oxford turned 21 years old in April of that year, presumably ableto assume control of his father's estates (they had been held in trust and managed by Leicester until Edward reached his majority). The Queen favored the match between Edward and Anne. They were married in December, 1571, but like other aristocratic young men, Edward wanted to take the Grand Tour of Europe to complete his education. He may have envied Philip Sidney, who hadnot completed law school, but instead had traveled in Europe for a year.

When Philip’s uncle, the Earl of Leicester, married Lettice Knollys and had a son by her in 1573, Philip's prospects for inheritance from Leicester dimmed considerably. In 1583 Philip married Frances Walsingham, the 14-year-old daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham, a staunch Protestant who approved Philip’s Protestant fervor. Philip did not become "Sir" Philip Sidney until he was in his late twenties, three years before his death from a battle wound (1586).

Rivalry with Sidney in Poetry

Thomas Looney, who first identified Oxford as the probable authorof the Shakespearean canon, was not the only person who compared the poetry of Philip Sidney to that of Shakespeare, much to the advantage of Shakespeare. Ogburn considers Philip's poetry "a mediocrity" given to lackluster imitation and outright plagiarism. He quotes Sir Sidney Lee as saying "Petrarch, Ronsardand Desportes inspired the majority of Sidney's efforts, and his addresses to abstractions like sleep, the moon, his muse, grief or lust are almost verbatim translations from the French."

Looney also quotes Dean Church as saying, "Sidney was not withouthis full share of that affectation which was then thought refinement," so that Shakespeare might have had Sidney in mind when he satirized the dandified "honey-tongued Boyet" in "Love's Labors Lost":

89

This fellow pecks up wit as pigeons pease,And utters it again when God doth please. . . . . . . . . Why this is heThat kiss'd away his hand in courtesy;This is the ape of form, monsieur the nice. . . . -- Act V, Scene 2

Today, Philip Sidney is remembered not so much for his poetry as for his representation as an ideal courtier -- courteous and dutiful. This image, however, was craftily devised for political purposes.

Philip's funeral was a lavish affair, costing over 6,000 pounds, paid for primarily by his father-in-law Francis Walsingham, who wanted to idealize Philip as a martyr for the Protestant cause. Thus Philip became lionized as the perfect gentleman and model courtier. Stories began to circulate about his noble conduct as asoldier, particularly about his giving his own water ration to a dying man on the battlefield. Capitalizing upon Philip Sidney's celebrity status, Fulke Greville and other friends assembled a collection of his sonnets and songs. They published it posthumously in 1590 under the title "Astrophel and Stella," (star-lover and star).

At that time most readers considered the idealized "Stella" to represent Queen Elizabeth, who was frequently identified with celestial imagery such as the moon and sun. She was well known for welcoming poetical tributes and even flattery, consistent with the courtly love tradition of admiration for the unattainable woman. As previously mentioned, some twentieth century speculation has identified "Stella" as Penelope Devereux Rich, or "Lady Rich." Admittedly, one of Sidney's sonnets does pun on the name "Rich" but it is unlikely that Sidney intended every sonnet in the sequence to idealize her.

The posthumously published collection proved to be a commercial success and helped to popularize the sonnet form. The fourteen-line Petrarchan sonnet with the rhyme scheme of abba, abba, cde, cde had been popular in Italy, where the language provided many ways of rhyming. An uncle of Edward De Vere, the Earl of Surrey,

90

was said to be the first poet to adapt the sonnet into English with the rhyme scheme of four quatrains and a couplet: abab, cdcd, efef, gg. No doubt young Edward also experimented with poetic forms and became adept at iambic pentameter as well as other metrical measures.

Just three years after "Astrophel and Stella" was published, appeared "Venus and Adonis [1593]," the first long narrative poemto be published under the name of William Shakespeare. In the dedication to Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare referred to the work as "the first heir of my invention," which Charlton Ogburn, Jr., interprets as the first use of the pen name "William Shakespeare." The following year another narrative poem appeared under the name of William Shakespeare, "Lucrece," (later retitled "The Rape of Lucrece"). Shakespeare probably composed many of his sonnets in the decade of the 1590's.

If the Oxfordians are correct, as I believe they are, Edward De Vere wrote and published these two narrative poems, concealing his identity under a pseudonym because of his special relationship to Queen Elizabeth's court. It would be reasonable to assume that De Vere was also working on a sequence of sonnets in the 1590's, planning to dedicate it to Henry Wriothesley, anagramming the young man's initials to "Mr. W. H." This sonnet manuscript, too, was published posthumously (1609), the printer having obtained it from the estate of Elizabeth Trentham De Vere,the widow of Edward De Vere. Although the Stratford man, Will Shakspere, was still living, he made no claim to be the author ofthe sonnets, nor did he receive any royalties from the printer. Also, if we try to interpret the rivals as two male poets competing for the favors and patronage of a young Earl, the poemsraise more questions than they resolve. We are justified in concluding that the Stratford man did not write the sonnets.

Love and Rivalry

If we read the themes of love and rivalry in the sonnets as genuine appreciation for Elizabeth -- her vast knowledge, her graces, and her uniqueness -- as opposed to the derivative drivel

91

of rival poets, then Shakespeare’s songs make a great deal of sense. Knowing something of the real-life rivals of Edward De Vere does enable us to understand the poems better and to solve enduring mysteries surrounding the cast of characters. We can also make better guesses as to when the sonnets were written, by linking them to historical events and events in Oxford’s life.

Similar readings to those in this chapter can be made for all thepoems in the Rival Poet series, generally considered as Sonnets 78-86. But there are other ways of grouping the sonnets to tell the hidden story – a story of anguish and betrayal as well as joyand devotion.

* * * *

Chapter 7The Difficult Decade of the 1580’s

The decade of the 1580’s marked a turning point in Elizabethan England. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 gave cause for celebration and for giving the English people a sense of nationalpride. Admiral Charles Howard, who commanded Elizabeth’s naval forces against Spain’s, was a Catholic, but one whose loyalty to his Protestant Queen was indisputable. And so was her trust in him.

Quite the opposite sort of man was the Admiral’s relative Lord Henry Howard of Effington, whose slanders had caused so much grief to the Earl of Oxford earlier in the decade. He and his partner in calumny, Charles Arundel, had sown the seeds of distrust that resulted in Oxford’s banishment from court for 26 months in 1581-83. Even after his release from the Tower in June of 1581, Oxford lived under house arrest by order of the Queen. Yet he assuaged his pain by turning his energies to the theater.

During this time Oxford had acquired the sublease for the Blackfriar’s Theater (a former monastery), and had combined two acting groups, Oxford’s Boys and Paul’s Boys. Oxford’s personal secretary, John Lyly, managed the theater and the acting company for him. In 1582 the troupe of actors performed two plays later

92

attributed to John Lyly, though some Twentieth Century scholars believe they had been written, in whole or in part, by the Earl of Oxford.

Although the theatrical ventures were going well, Oxford’s personal life was at its nadir. In March of 1582 he was attacked by Thomas Knyvet, an uncle of Ann Vavasor’s, supposedly to exact revenge for Oxford’s seduction of his niece. Yet since a whole year had elapsed since the birth of the bastard son, and since Oxford was supporting the child and his mother, the revenge motive is questionable. It would appear that Oxford’s enemies at court may have enlisted Knyvet’s aid in an attempt to get rid of Oxford. In any case, Knyvet wounded Oxford in the leg, causing the lameness that hindered the Earl for the rest of his life.

In that decade Oxford was trying to make amends to his countess, Anne Cecil De Vere, for his previous doubts about her faithfulness. Anne gave birth to a son in March of 1583, who would have been the legitimate heir to the earldom, but the infant lived only two days. Deep sorrow permeated the De Vere household.

Elizabeth must have been feeling some pity for Oxford and his countess for the loss of their infant son. Walter Raleigh, too, felt compassion for his rival poet, and since he was high in the Queen’s favor in 1583, he generously interceded to plead with Elizabeth to forgive Oxford and permit him to return to court.

In a letter dated June 2, Sir Roger Manners gave Raleigh credit for facilitating a reconciliation between Elizabeth and Oxford, also noting that Burghley was “angry for that he could not do so much.” He was writing to his brother Edward Manners, the Earl of Rutland, who had been a friend of Oxford’s since boyhood. Mannerswrote that the Queen had come to Greenwich from the Lord Treasurer’s house on June 1, and that the Earl of Oxford had comeinto her presence. “After some bitter words and speeches, in the end all was forgiven, and he may repair to the Court at his pleasure.” To a sensitive soul like Oxford, mutual forgiveness must have come as a great relief, yet his pain could not be easily assuaged. Sonnet 139 expresses his agony:

93

Sonnet 139O! call not me to justify the wrong That thy unkindness lays upon my heart;Wound me not with thine eye, but with thy tongue: Use power with power, and slay me not by art, Tell me thou lov'st elsewhere; but in my sight, Dear heart, forbear to glance thine eye aside: What need'st thou wound with cunning, when thy might Is more than my o'erpressed defence can bide? Let me excuse thee: ah! my love well knowsHer pretty looks have been mine enemies;And therefore from my face she turns my foes, That they elsewhere might dart their injuries: Yet do not so; but since I am near slain,Kill me outright with looks, and rid my pain.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 139Do not ask me to defend myself against your unkind accusations, which have wounded my heart. Do not wound me by expressing disapproval with your eyes, but use words. Use your power with words against my power, and do not mince your words, but tell me outright that you love another man. When you are with me, Dear One, resist the temptation to glance aside or to deceive me with cunning. You have the might to slay me when my defenses are weak.I will excuse my Love, because she well knows her pretty looks have done me harm. She has diverted the attention of my foes so that they throw their darts elsewhere. Yet don’t bother to do that, because I am so near to being slain that you can kill me outright with your disapproving looks, thus ending my pain.

Commentary on Sonnet 139The inequality of the powers between the lovers, with the woman having the power to destroy the man, fits the relationship of courtier to queen much better than that of lovers who have equal social standing. The poet also shifts from direct address in the second person (you) to third person (she) when his words might seem to suggest a criticism. Among the foes alluded to in this sonnet are some courtiers who are jealous of Oxford (Leicester, Burghley) and the manipulative slanderers Arundel and Howard who,

94

like Iago to Othello, had aroused Elizabeth’s suspicions with innuendo, distortions, and outright lies. Oxford knew that Elizabeth now had a new favorite – Walter Raleigh – but he would rather hear the blunt truth from her than endure the pretense and guile that had begun to sully the atmosphere of the court.

By 1583 Oxford had come to realize that much of court behavior was based on the pretense (for political purposes) that Elizabethwas a virgin, yet he had sworn never to reveal her secrets. She was also considered to be above criticism, so her courtiers wouldhave to pretend she was perfect, even if they knew otherwise. To someone as loyal as Oxford, this would entail taking blame upon himself so that her public image could be maintained as one of spotless virtue. Yet he endured this charade because he really did love her.

Sonnets 88, 89, and 90 fit this occasion. In Sonnet 88, the poet offers to take her side, even to fight against himself for her sake, and to swear she is virtuous although he knows she is forsworn – that is, she has broken many solemn vows. The ending couplet of Sonnet 88 is quite touching in its devotion:

“Such is my love, to thee I so belong,That for thy right, myself will bear all wrong.”

Sonnet 89 deserves a more complete analysis, because it reveals much about the poet himself:

Sonnet 89Say that thou didst forsake me for some fault, And I will comment upon that offence: Speak of my lameness, and I straight will halt, Against thy reasons making no defence. Thou canst not, love, disgrace me half so ill, To set a form upon desired change,As I'll myself disgrace; knowing thy will, I will acquaintance strangle, and look strange; Be absent from thy walks; and in my tongue Thy sweet beloved name no more shall dwell,

95

Lest I, too much profane, should do it wrong, And haply of our old acquaintance tell. For thee, against my self I'll vow debate, For I must ne'er love him whom thou dost hate.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 89Suppose you stopped loving me because I had some fault; then I would think about that fault and try to correct it. If you find my lameness disagreeable, I will immediately stop, without questioning your reasons or trying to defend myself. You cannot, my love, disgrace me half so badly as I would disgrace myself, ifyou specify the changes you desire me to make. Knowing that you desire it, I will end any acquaintance you disapprove of, and actlike a stranger, not accompany you on your walks, and never allowmy tongue to mention your sweet beloved name, lest I should profane it accidentally, and wrong you by letting something slip about our former intimacy. For you, I will promise to debate against myself if need be, for I cannot love myself if you hate me.

Commentary on Sonnet 89The mention of his lameness as a biographical fact fits the Earl of Oxford, who was made lame in a swordfight. Yet Stratfordian scholars cannot explain the reference to lameness according to any known facts about Will Shakspere of Stratford. The poet’s promise to mend any imperfections that his lover perceives, in the hope of regaining her approval, will even take him so far as to pretend he doesn’t know her. The third quatrain strongly suggests the poet’s fear of divulging “profane” or earthly evidence of a divine relationship in their past – which could very well be the intimacy with her that Arundel and Howard falsely accused him of revealing.

Throughout the decade Oxford continued to write sonnets to Elizabeth, but not with the slavish passion he had once felt. She, on the other hand, was conducting a scandalous affair with Count Jehan de Simier, a French emissary who came to negotiate a marriage contract between Elizabeth and the Duke of Alencon (formerly Duke of Anjou). Oxford then wrote about Elizabeth’s faithlessness, and his disillusionment with her. He began to call

96

her “Cressid,” and when he wrote “Troilus and Cressida” he made Elizabeth the model for his promiscuous leading character. Sonnet142 would have characterized Oxford’s mood at that time.

Sonnet 142Love is my sin, and thy dear virtue hate, Hate of my sin, grounded on sinful loving: O! but with mine compare thou thine own state, And thou shalt find it merits not reproving; Or, if it do, not from those lips of thine, That have profaned their scarlet ornaments And sealed false bonds of love as oft as mine, Robbed others' beds' revenues of their rents. Be it lawful I love thee, as thou lov'st those Whom thine eyes woo as mine importune thee: Root pity in thy heart, that, when it grows, Thy pity may deserve to pitied be.If thou dost seek to have what thou dost hide, By self-example may’st thou be denied!

Paraphrase of Sonnet 142My sin is love, but your precious “virtue” is hate. You hate my sin, which is grounded in sinful loving, but if you compare my situation with your own, you will find I don’t deserve to be censured any more than you do. Or if I do deserve reproof, it ought not to come from you, because you have profaned your scarlet lips by swearing false vows as often as I have. You have robbed other wives of the marital attention due to them from their husbands. I wish it were lawful for me to love you. I wish you could love me the way you love those men that you woo with your eyes the way my eyes beg for your love. Plant a seed of pity in your heart, so that when it grows, you will be deserving of pity yourself. If you do truly seek that virtue you have hidden under a mask of piety, you set an example of hypocrisy that would cause the world to deny you that pity.

Commentary on Sonnet 142Although scholars Dorothy Ogburn and Charles Barrell both think Sonnet 142 was directed toward Ann Vavasor, the “scarlet lips” make it seem more likely to be addressed to Queen Elizabeth. As

97

we know, Shakespeare often inserted a barb chiding the Queen (andother vain women) for using cosmetics to try to appear younger. Also, the public persona of a virtuous virgin was clearly at oddswith Elizabeth’s passionate nature, and the description in the poem (cruel treatment of former lovers) fits Elizabeth better than it does Ann Vavasor.

It was Simier, while having his own affair with Elizabeth, who informed her that her erstwhile lover, Robert Dudley, to whom shehad given the splendid estate of Kenilworth and the illustrious title of Earl of Leicester, had secretly married Lettice Knollys,a cousin of Elizabeth’s whom she despised. Lettice was then the widow of the first Earl of Essex, Walter Devereux. Gossips of theday speculated that Lettice’s husband had been poisoned, since hedied suddenly of a stomach ailment while on his way home from Ireland. Rumor also had it that Lettice had given birth to two children by Leicester when her husband was away. One of the Devereux children, born in 1566, was named Robert. Thus upon marrying Lettice, Leicester became a stepfather to Robert Devereux, the Second Earl of Essex, who was rumored to have been his son. Essex would become a favorite of Elizabeth’s after the death of Leicester, and later on the source of unfathomable grieffor her and others who loved him.

Leicester’s death came in June of 1588, just before the triumph over the Armada in July. Elizabeth mourned for most of that year,even during the national celebration of the defeat of the Armada in November. Poisoning was suspected, but never proved. One rumorsurmised that he had, accidentally, drunk a poisoned brew he intended for someone else. Whether accurate or not, Shakespeare used that scenario in the play of Hamlet.

Oxford, too, had undergone much sorrow in that decade. The death of his countess, Anne Cecil, occurred in June while Oxford was away provisioning his ship, the “Edward Bonaventure” at his own expense, in preparation for the Spanish invasion. Anne had been depressed since the death of her infant son, so her death may have been a suicide. The guilt Oxford felt for mistreating and misjudging Anne early in their marriage never left him.

98

At the November celebration of the victory over Spain, the Earl of Oxford carried the canopy over the Queen’s head. This officialact was a hereditary honor reserved for the earls of Oxford, one of their duties as Lord Great Chamberlain of England. He mentionsthis honor in Sonnet 125, as having less meaning for him than true love. He also mentions the dispatching of a “suborned informer” – who was probably his treacherous cousin Lord Henry Howard. Lord Howard was tried and condemned to death in 1589, with Oxford present at the trial. If Oxford had been a vengeful person, revenge against his tormentor would have been sweet. But in Sonnet 125 he merely seems to feel relief at being vindicated as a “true soul” who has withstood the awful ordeal of being “vile esteemed” and emerged the stronger for it. He also includesa touchingly humble profession of his love for Elizabeth, an “oblation poor but free.” Probably this sonnet was written towardthe end of 1589, when he and Elizabeth were both in mourning.

Sonnet 125Were't aught to me I bore the canopy,With my extern the outward honouring,Or laid great bases for eternity,Which proves 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 mixed with seconds, knows no art, But mutual render, only me for thee.Hence, thou suborned informer! a true soul When most impeached stands least in thy control.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 125 Of what importance was it to me that I bore the canopy, honoring the outward show of power by wearing elegant exterior garments. Why did I think it important to lay a great foundation for eternity [plays and poetry], which didn’t last as long as it took for others to ruin it? Haven’t I seen those people who dwell on courtly formalities and seek royal

99

favor lose everything or go into debt by paying too high a price for sweet desserts, forgetting the satisfaction of simple flavors? These upwardly-mobile people are pitiful, gazing upward [at the sun] until they lose their sight. No, let me serve obediently in your heart, and accept my sacred offering, poor in comparison to others’ gifts, but freely and generously given. It is pure, not mixed with inferior substances. It is not artificial, but a genuine offering, an even exchange of equal value – given from me to you, and from you to me. Get away from us, you paid informant! A soul of true integrity, when most cruelly jeopardized, is least damaged by your manipulations.

Commentary on Sonnet 125The allusion to bearing the canopy gives strong support for the Earl of Oxford’s candidacy as the author of the Shakespearean canon. He had seen ambitious people consumed with desire for wealth and status, lose out by trying to climb above their station in life, like Christopher Hatton, or going deep into debtto entertain the Queen, like Robert Dudley, or hanging around hoping for preferment, like Francis Bacon. Even Lord Burghley, who amassed great wealth as Queen Elizabeth’s advisor and Treasurer, in the end lost his soul and his integrity. The poet also uses a mix of Latinate language and plain English speech, contrasting the formalities of a privileged aristocracy to the simple, straightforward expression of true love, which has no hierarchies of power or status, but only “mutual render,” a Latin-based legal term, promptly translated into simple English: “only me for thee.” This line gives a hint of the quality of the love these two experienced in Twelfth Night of 1573 – complete surrender to each other, with no thought of rank or the trappingsof power, each giving freely to the other the fulfillment of their mutual desire.

Oxford’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth Vere, was approaching marriageable age in 1589. She had gone to live with her grandfather, Lord Burghley, after her mother died, so Burghley She had gone to live with her grandfather, Lord Burghley, after her mother died, so Burghley year-old youth for whom Burghley hadthe right to select a mate. This young man was a valuable

100

“catch,” being heir to an earldom with substantial income, and also well educated, well bred, and quite attractive to the maidens of the court. Burghley offered his granddaughter as a wife for his young ward, but the youth hesitated. He was too young to marry, he said, and requested another year to decide. Burghley grudgingly agreed to wait, and he probably introduced his son-in-law to his ward, since after all,

Oxford was the father of Elizabeth Vere. Thus Oxford became acquainted with Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton,and somehow that year he became aware that this fair youth was his son -- the son that the Queen had snatched away from him seventeen years earlier, and who now resembled his mother as she had looked in the prime of her young womanhood.

Oxford, who had recently suffered the loss of an infant son, and whose only other offspring were girls, took great delight in his newly-discovered progeny, and began writing sonnets to persuade Henry to carry on the blood-line of the Tudor and De Vere families. It may be numerically symbolic that the first seventeensonnets were written to a seventeen-year-old by the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, but several other sonnets are also addressed to Henry Wriothesley. In Sonnet 105, the poet celebrates the bonds of kinship, symbolically linking “fair, kind, and true” as traitsrepresenting Queen Elizabeth (fair), himself (true, a pun on “Vere”), and their son (kind, suggesting kindred).

Sonnet 105Let not my love be called idolatry,Nor my beloved as an idol show,Since all alike my songs and praises beTo one, of one, still such, and ever so.Kind is my love to-day, to-morrow kind,Still constant in a wondrous excellence;Therefore my verse to constancy confined, One thing expressing, leaves out difference. Fair, kind, and true, is all my argument,Fair, kind, and true, varying to other words; And in this change is my invention spent,Three themes in one, which wondrous scope affords.

101

Fair, kind, and true, have often lived alone, Which three till now, never kept seat in one.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 105My love is not idol-worship, nor is my love an idol, since all ofmy songs and praises are devoted to one person and I write only of that one. That is still true, and will ever be true. My love is kind today and will be kind tomorrow, still constant in a wondrous excellence. Therefore my verse is confined to that constant theme, expressing one thing, ignoring other differences.My theme is always about fair, kind, and true, although I vary the wording. Changing the words takes all my imagination, but thethree themes in one permit me a wondrous scope. Fair, kind, and true have often lived independently, and until now, they have notall been combined into one.

Commentary on Sonnet 105This sonnet offers many clues about the trinity of father, mother, and son, which is the poet’s primary and consistent theme. The line “to one, of one, still such, and ever so,” puns on the motto of Henry Wriothesley “One for all, all for one,” andthe motto of Elizabeth (Semper Eadem, “ever the same”), and the name of Edward De Vere in the word “ever” (E. Ver). The word “kind” has a double meaning: its root meaning is “kindred,” but it also suggests gentleness or gentility. Since “Fair” representsElizabeth (fair in coloring, and nice as in “fair weather”), and “True” represents De Vere (whose name means “true” and whose motto Vero Nihil Verius means “Nothing truer than truth”), then the three traits of fairness, loyalty, and kindness are joined for the first time in one person – the son of Elizabeth Tudor andEdward De Vere.

Oxford never gave up hope that someday the Queen would acknowledge Southampton as her son, heir to the throne of England. If she had married Oxford, as might have been possible when both of them were unmarried in 1590, he would have become Prince Consort, and their son would have been legitimized. But that was not to be.

102

Instead, something wonderful happened to the Earl of Oxford – he fell in love again.

* * * *

Chapter 8Sonnets of Joy and Sorrow

Queen Elizabeth knew that Oxford had been withdrawn and sad for the three years since his first wife died, and that he was chafing under the restriction of not being able to publish his plays and poetry under his own name. She believed she had acted in self-defense in letting Gascoigne take credit for some of Oxford’s verses that might have revealed or hinted at court secrets, but her naming of Gascoigne as Poet Laureate was a blow to Oxford’s pride. His name had been buried under posies such as Ignoto, Fortunatus infoelix, and Meritum petere, grave. Even his initials “E.O.” were not signed to poems other than his early works. Sonnet 76, addressed to the Queen, seems to apologize for not adopting new literary fads and styles, but it also provides the poet’s self-defense, or apologia, for his inability to change. Itexpresses Oxford’s frustration at having to keep his creations (inventions) in a black mourning garment (weed). He also gives a clue to his true identity in the line “Every word doth almost tell my name.”

Sonnet 76Why is my verse so barren of new pride,So far from variation or quick change?Why with the time do I not glance asideTo new-found methods, and to compounds strange? Why write I still all one, ever the same,And keep invention in a noted weed,That every word doth almost tell my name, Showing their birth, and where they did proceed? O! know sweet love I always write of you, And you and love are still my argument;So all my best is dressing old words new,Spending again what is already spent:

103

For as the sun is daily new and old,So is my love still telling what is told.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 76Why does my poetry lack the ability to change with the times, usenew forms and methods, adapt foreign literature by compounding itwith English? Why do I always write on the same subject in the same way, and keep my poetry in a recognized mourning garment? Every word I write almost tells my name, indicating where the words came from and what they will proceed to say. O, Sweet Love,know that I always write of you, and our love is always my theme.So my best work is dressing old words with new garments, or renewing past experiences by reliving them. As the old sun is renewed each day, my love is renewed by repeatedly telling of it.

Commentary on Sonnet 76Line seven contains a clue as to the author’s real name “E. Vere.” “Every word” almost tells his name, but not quite. Line five alludes to the motto of Queen Elizabeth “ever the same” as well as punning again on “E. Ver” and the word “ever.” “All one” may allude to the motto of their son, “All for one, one for all,”and the couplet may contain a pun on “sun/son” as well as an allusion to the Queen as the “roi soleil” meaning the royal sun that rules the heavens.

Queen Elizabeth probably helped to arrange Oxford’s second marriage, because she had to approve any marriage to one of her maids of honor. In addition to keeping him productive as a playwright, the Queen probably had a sincere concern for his welfare and happiness.

Oxford’s second wedding, unlike his first, was a rather quiet matter that took place in September, 1591, according to his biographer Dorothy Ogburn. Hubert Holland reports that in July ofthat year Oxford sold a London house to Francis Trentham, to be used for the benefit of his sister, the bride-to-be. Not much else is known about his second countess, Elizabeth Trentham, except that she was one of Queen Elizabeth’s maids of honor,

104

highly regarded as a well-bred, intelligent, and pretty young woman. She was probably about eight or ten years younger than Oxford, but had been with Elizabeth about ten years without having found a suitable husband.

The match was apparently quite suitable, since both groom and bride had appropriate social credentials, and they were in love. Lady Trentham was the daughter of a Staffordshire landowner namedSir Thomas Trentham, with enough property of her own to bring to her marriage some financial stability, and her deep devotion to her Lord enabled him to be happy and productive.

In 1590, Oxford’s name had been omitted from the Book of Honor, although he had been listed there for winning of tournaments in 1571 and 1581. Sonnet 25 captures his disillusionment over that snub, as well as his happiness in being loved for himself, which probably indicates his contentment with his new love:

Sonnet 25Let those who are in favour with their stars Of public honour and proud titles boast, Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars, Unlook'd for, joy in that I honour most. Great princes' favourites their fair leaves spread But as the marigold at the sun's eye,And in themselves their pride lies buried, For at a frown they in their glory die.The painful warrior famoused for fight, After a thousand victories once foiled, Is from the book of honour razed quite, And all the rest forgot for which he toiled: Then happy I, that love and am beloved, Where I may not remove nor be removed.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 25 Let those who have been born under a lucky star boast of their public honors and proud titles, while I, who am barred from such triumph, not sought out, find joy in that which I honor most. The favorites of great kings and queens spread their fair leaves, but as the marigold opens with the sun’s warmth and closes at sunset, they bury their pride in

105

themselves, for when their great prince frowns upon them disapprovingly, their glory dies. The painfully wounded warrior, famous for his fighting ability, may have won a thousand victories, but once he loses or retires from battle, he is quite thoroughly erased from the Book of Honor, and everything he has worked for is forgotten. I am happy, however, because I love and am loved in return, in a place where I cannot displace another favorite, nor be removed [from court, or honors’ lists, by the whim of a royal authority].

Commentary on Sonnet 25The term “great princes” applies to monarchs both male and female. The marigold was the flower of Queen Elizabeth, here usedsymbolically to represent the transient nature of glory and the Queen’s capricious removal from court all those who displeased her. The love that permanently remains to comfort him could be the love of his son, Henry Wriothesley, but it fits just as well with a new wife whose steadfast love makes up for the snobbery ofcourtiers and the lack of appreciation for the playwright’s labors.

Some appreciation for Oxford, however, came from fellow writers at that time. John Lyly in 1591 published Endymion, in which the title character was modeled after Oxford, and the queen Cynthia modeled after Elizabeth. The theme was that even subjects with Catholic leanings, like Oxford, can be staunchly loyal to their sovereigns. The poet Edmund Spenser, who published his poem “The Faerie Queene” in 1590, managed to slip past Lord Burghley’s censors an acknowledgement of Oxford’s talent and reputation. Thesubject “queene” of the poem was symbolic of Queen Elizabeth, andOxford was one of those to whom Spencer’s work was dedicated. In the dedication to Oxford, Spenser wrote:

Receive, most noble Lord, in gentle gree {gree = good will] The unripe fruit of an unready wit,Which by thy countenance doth crave to bee [countenance = approval] Defended from foule Envies poisonous bit, [bit = bite]Which so to do may thee right well befitSith th’antique glory of thine ancestry, [sith = since]

106

Under a shady vele is therein writ, [vele = veil]Succeeding them in true nobility . . .

The hint to Oxford from Spenser was that the glory of his own De Vere ancestry could be found in “The Faerie Queene,” although “veiled” by symbolism that would not be readily understood by theenvious people (rivals at court) who would destroy it if they understood it. Shakespeare’s beautiful Sonnet 106 echoes the opening stanza of “The Faerie Queene,” and it praises Spenser’s poem as much as it compliments the addressee.

Sonnet 106When in the chronicle of wasted time [wasted = long past]I see descriptions of the fairest wights, And beauty making beautiful old rhyme, In praise of ladies dead and lovely knights, Then, in the blazon of sweet beauty's best, Of hand, of foot, of lip, of eye, of brow, I see their antique pen would have express'd Even such a beauty as you master now. So all their praises are but propheciesOf this our time, all you prefiguring;And for they looked but with divining eyes, They had not skill enough your worth to sing: For we, which now behold these present days, Have eyes to wonder, but lack tongues to praise.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 106When in the stories of long ago I see descriptions of the most admirable persons, and beauty of poetry reviving the beauty of old rhymes in praise of ladies no longer living and lovable knights, then in the heraldic array of sweet beauty’s best – of your hands, feet, lips, eyes, and brow – I see the ancient rhymers wanted to describe the kind of beauty that you now possess. So all the old praises were just prophecies of the present time, all of them prefiguring you. But though they could divine the future, the ancients did not have skill enough to visualize all the virtues you possess. Yet we of the present day,who can actually see you now, use our eyes only to marvel at yourmagnificence, and we are dumbfounded by it.

107

Commentary on Sonnet 106This poem could be addressed to the Fair Youth, as many scholars have supposed. It might, however, be addressed to Queen Elizabeth, serving the same courtly purpose as Spenser’s allegoryin paying homage to Elizabeth. The list of praiseworthy parts in the sonnet also suggests a woman’s features (hands, feet, lips and eyes) rather than those of a young man. By the 1590’s, Oxfordhad come to see the superficiality in the adulation of the Queen by various court poets, but he still admired her for the unique person she was. If this poem is addressed to Elizabeth, it shows a restrained admiration in contrast with the painful emotions of romantic love, or the anger over betrayal, that we see in other sonnets. If it was written in the 1590’s, Oxford was happily married, but he could praise the Queen for her beautiful qualities without declaring a personal love for her.

Another significant publication in 1590 was the sonnet collection“Astrophel and Stella” by Philip Sidney, published posthumously by friends and relatives. It, too, glorified Queen Elizabeth, andit helped to make the sonnet form popular. It may also have motivated Oxford to begin revising his long narrative poem “Venusand Adonis,” and to start assembling his own sonnet collection sothat he might present it to his son, Henry Wriothesley.

In December of 1591, Oxford alienated his property at Castle Hedingham to Burghley to set up in trust for his three daughters.His new wife fully concurred in the arrangement, for if a son should be born to her and her Lord, he would inherit the earldom.Thus Oxford provided for the daughters of his first marriage. A similar scenario appears in Shakespeare’s play “King Lear,” when Lear (whose name is an anagram of Earl) is dividing his property among his three daughters.

Meanwhile, Oxford was very much enjoying the son he could not acknowledge openly – Henry Wriothesley, who at age 18 was still in the Court of Wards under Burghley, and still resisting any marriage that Burghley might propose. Sonnet 37 captures the paternal sentiments while also revealing much about the author.

108

Sonnet 37As a decrepit father takes delightTo see his active child do deeds of youth, So I, made lame by Fortune's dearest spite, Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth; For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit, Or any of these all, or all, or more,Entitled in thy parts, do crowned sit,I make my love engrafted to this store:So then I am not lame, poor, nor despis'd, Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give That I in thy abundance am suffic'd,And by a part of all thy glory live.Look what is best, that best I wish in thee: This wish I have; then ten times happy me!

Paraphrase of Sonnet 37As a decrepit father enjoys watching his active child grow up, soI, made lame by a spiteful act of revenge, take comfort in your worthiness and honesty. For whether you have all the characteristics of beauty, good breeding, wealth, or intelligence, whether only some or even more of them, I attach mylove to these noble traits. So then I am not feeling lame, or poor, or despised, because even your shadow gives enough substance for me to live vicariously through you, and bask in theglory that comes from you. Look to what is best; that is what I would wish for you. I already have got my wish, so I am ten timeshappier than I was.

Commentary on Sonnet 37: The poets references to being “decrepit”in contrast to his active child, being made lame, being poor, feeling despised – all these circumstances indicate that Edward De Vere was the author of the poem. “Fortune’s dearest spite” probably refers to his misfortune in being wounded in an attack by Thomas Knyvet, spiteful in its alleged motive of revenge for getting Ann Vavasor pregnant. He takes comfort, however, in seeing his beloved son grow up well, so that he lives vicariouslyin the beauty, good breeding, and wealth of his offspring. The

109

reference to “entitled” and “crowned” suggest that the son has a royal heritage.

Walter Raleigh secretly married one of Elizabeth’s Maids of Honor, Bessie Throckmorton, probably in 1588 or 1589, but he could not keep the marriage secret after Bessie gave birth to their child in 1592. Furious at this betrayal by her former favorite, the Queen imprisoned him in a fortress – and threatenedto send him to the Tower. During his confinement, Raleigh began to write poetry about a cruel mistress named “Cynthia.”

Then Elizabeth turned more of her attentions to the young auburn-haired Second Earl of Essex, Robert Devereux, who much resembled his natural father, Robert Dudley, the now-deceased Earl of Leicester. Gossip circulated about young Essex playing cards withthe Queen late into the night, or accompanying her on walks. But the attraction between them did not seem romantic, because Elizabeth was old enough to be his mother. Indeed, some observed that her concern for him seemed more maternal than amatory.

Born in 1566, the Second Earl of Essex was six years older than the Third Earl of Southampton. The two became close friends, withSouthampton looking up to Essex as he might to an older brother. Meanwhile, Lord Burghley was growing old and somewhat fearful that one of these young men might persuade Elizabeth to make him her heir. He began grooming his son, Robert Cecil, to take over his role as Lord Treasurer after his death. And the two Cecils – father and son – became locked in a power struggle against the two young earls, each pair fearing the influence of the others upon the Queen.

Oxford, of course, had to show deference to Lord Burghley, who was not only the Queen’s most trusted advisor, but also the grandfather of his three daughters from his first marriage. Yet he had experienced enough undermining by the Cecils so that he tended to sympathize with young Henry. In a touchingly paternal poem, Sonnet 22, the poet dismisses as unimportant the differencein their ages, professing a love that is protective and unconditional.

110

Sonnet 22My glass shall not persuade me I am old, So long as youth and thou are of one date; But when in thee time's furrows I behold, Then look I death my days should expiate. For all that beauty that doth cover thee, Is but the seemly raiment of my heart, Which in thy breast doth live, as thine in me: How can I then be elder than thou art? O! therefore love, be of thyself so wary As I, not for myself, but for thee will; Bearing thy heart, which I will keep so chary As tender nurse her babe from faring ill. Presume not on thy heart when mine is slain, Thou gav'st me thine not to give back again.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 22My mirror tries to show my face as old, but it cannot persuade meof that as long as you are young and I see myself in you. But when I begin to see wrinkles in you, then I will know my days arenearly over, and I expect death to end, and atone for, my life. For all that beauty that covers you is just a garment that it seems my heart drapes over you. My heart resides in your breast, as yours does in mine. How can I then be older than you are? O, therefore, Love, take care of yourself, as I will take care of myself for you. While I am bearing your heart, I will keep watch as a tender nurse would to keep her babe from becoming ill. Do not expect to get your heart back when mine is dead; you gave me yours to keep.

Commentary on Sonnet 22:The idea of lovers exchanging hearts was a convention in poetry of Shakespeare’s time, but he makes it original by visioning the keeping of each other’s hearts to be the obligation of father andson. Each will take care of himself so that he will be available when the other needs him. But the love invested by each is uniqueand non-returnable, unlike romantic love, so it cannot ever be given to anyone else.

111

The idea of growing old had begun to trouble Oxford in his forties, which would have been a fairly mature age in his time. In 1591 he turned forty-one years old, but felt rejuvenated by his new bride and his newfound son Henry Wriothesley. He carries these thoughts over into Sonnet 104, in which he mentions it has been three years since he met his son. That would make the date of this poem approximately 1593.

Sonnet 104To me, fair friend, you never can be old,For as you were when first your eye I ey'd, Such seems your beauty still. Three winters cold, Have from the forests shook three summers' pride, Three beauteous springs to yellow autumn turn'd, In process of the seasons have I seen,Three April perfumes in three hot Junes burn'd, Since first I saw you fresh, which yet are green. Ah! yet doth beauty like a dial-hand,Steal from his figure, and no pace perceiv'd; So your sweet hue, which methinks still doth stand, Hath motion, and mine eye may be deceiv'd: For fear of which, hear this thou age unbred: Ere you were born was beauty's summer dead.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 104Beloved, you can never seem old to me, for you seem just as beautiful now as you did when my eyes first looked into yours. Three cold winters have shook the summers’ leaves from the forests; three beauteous springs have turned to yellow autumn; asthe seasons unfolded I have seen three April perfumes burned dry in three hot Junes – since first I saw you freshly, and you stillseem freshly green. Ah, yet, like the hands of a clock, beauty quietly steals from his figure, with imperceptible slowness, so your sweet color may be fading, though it looks fine to me, but my eyes may be deceived. If that is true, I have a message for posterity: before you were born, beauty’s finest moments had already passed away.

Commentary on Sonnet 104The chief interest in this sonnet is the time frame of three

112

years that father and son have known each other. The poet emphasizes this time frame with the extended metaphor of seasons passing, expressed in beautiful parallel phrasing. If indeed we can date this poem as the year 1593, it shows how close the two of them had become in that short a time.

London theaters were closed for almost two years when a severe epidemic of plague gripped the city, beginning in October of 1592, through all of 1593, and the first six months of 1594. Yet publications continued in print. Samuel Daniel’s sonnet sequence “Delia,” which supposedly was an influence on Shakespeare’s sonnets, was published in 1592, as was a sonnet sequence by a friend of Southampton’s, Henry Constable, “Diana: the Praises of his Mistress, in Certain Sweet Sonnets.” Edward De Vere could notpublish the sonnets he had been writing over many years, but he may have taken time to revise and polish some of them during the plague year. He also chose the name “William Shakespeare” as a pseudonym under which he could publish a long narrative poem (in 1593) and dedicate it to the son that he could not openly acknowledge.

Why did he choose the name “William Shakespeare”? For one reason,he was already known as “Will” or “Willie” among his actor and poet friends. For another, he may have wished to honor his guardian, William Cecil. He had also been called a “Spear-shaker”when he competed in jousting tournaments. He had inherited at birth another title, “Lord Bulbeck,” whose crest was a lion brandishing a broken spear. And the spear also suggested the goddess Pallas Athena, patroness of the arts. It was a name neverbefore associated with Edward De Vere, or any other writer of hisday. So it seemed safe enough as a mask to conceal the identity of the author.

The dedication to “Venus and Adonis” is important for two reasons: it is the first time the name “William Shakespeare” appears in print as an author, and it shows that the author was acquainted with the Third Earl of Southampton. In the dedication,Shakespeare calls his poem “the first heir of my invention.” Oxfordians interpret this to mean that the name “Shakespeare” wasan invented one, and the published poem was the first work of

113

literature to benefit from it (that is, to be “heir” to his new name).

The germ of the story came from Ovid’s “Metamorphosis,” but Shakespeare elaborated upon it, turning it into a poetic narrative of passionate love. Of particular interest is that the lovegoddess Venus seduces the shy youth Adonis, using one of the arguments that Shakespeare used with the Fair Youth in his sonnets: “make a copy of yourself, so that your beauty will not be lost to the world.” We can easily infer that Venus represents Elizabeth, and Adonis represents Edward De Vere in their first amorous adventures.

Just as “Venus” featured female lust for a naïve male, “The Rape of Lucrece,” published in the following year, shows male lust fora naïve female in its darker aspects – aggressive, despoiling, irrational—as if the poet wanted to reveal the whole range of human sexuality. The dedication shows an even stronger bond between the poet and the Earl of Southampton. Here it is in full,with significant phrases emphasized:

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE HENRY WRIOTHESLEY Earl of Southampton and Baron of Titchfield

The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end , whereof this pamphlet, without beginning, is but a superfluous moiety. The warrant I have of your honourable disposition, not the worth of my untutored lines, makes it assured of acceptance. What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in allI have, devoted yours. Were my worth greater, my duty would show greater; meantime, as it is, it is bound to your lordship, to whom I wish long life, still lengthened with happiness.

Your lordship’s in all duty ….. William ShakespeareWhat had happened during the year of 1593 to create such devotionbetween the poet and the dedicatee? A dedication is always considered an honor, but to offer a love without end, and to say that everything he has done and will do belongs to the dedicatee,is strong stuff indeed. It would make no sense if we thought a commoner had sworn such loyalty to a titled nobleman, even if any

114

evidence existed that the nobleman had made a monetary contribution. Yet it does make sense if we recognize that this isa father speaking to a son that he has come to love dearly.

In February of 1593, the Earl and Countess of Oxford welcomed a new son and heir, whom they named Henry De Vere. Perhaps he was named after his half-brother, Henry Wriothesley, because the Third Earl of Southampton came to the christening at Hackney Church, and according to one source, stood as Godfather to the child. This event links the earls of Oxford and Southampton, whereas no biographer has been able to establish that Southamptonhad been a friend or acquaintance of Will Shakspere of Stratford.

The language of the second dedication to Southampton is reflectedin Sonnet 112, “you are my all-the-world,” although this sonnet may have been written before the birth of Oxford’s legitimate heir. This sonnet says that the addressee’s opinion of him is theonly one that matters, and that he can throw into an abyss all care he might once have had for the words of critics and flatterers. The ending couplet has been subject to much emendation and changes in punctuation, but in keeping with the rest of the sonnet, this arrangement seems most logical:

You are so strongly in my purpose bred,That all the world besides, methinks, are dead.

This couplet has been emended to read, “all the world, besides me, thinks you’re dead.” But that doesn’t fit the rest of the poem. It does fit, however, to interpret those lines as meaning “you are so much the center of my thoughts and deeds, that all the rest of the world seems dead to me.”Sonnet 30 also reflects on the power of the young son to erase other sorrows.

Sonnet 30When to the sessions of sweet silent thought I summon up remembrance of things past, I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought,And with old woes new wail my dear time's waste: Then can I drown an eye, unused to flow,

115

For precious friends hid in death's dateless night, And weep afresh love's long since cancell'd woe, And moan the expense of many a vanish'd sight: Then can I grieve at grievances foregone, And heavily from woe to woe tell o'erThe sad account of fore-bemoaned moan, Which I new pay as if not paid before.But if the while I think on thee, dear friend, All losses are restor'd and sorrows end.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 30:When I have some quiet time to myself, I like to recall things from my past. I sigh because I don’t have many of the things I wanted, and feel bad all over again for the time I wasted feelingbad in the past. Then although I can usually keep my eyes dry, I can practically drown them thinking about precious friends who died, and cry again over the sorrow of a long-dead love affair, and moan over the costly lessons I learned, that many things did not last. Then I can grieve over things that gave me grief long ago, and tell myself again, one sorrow after another, the sad account of things I bemoaned before, and pay for them again as ifI had not already paid. But if while I am thinking such thoughts,I think of you, Dear Friend, then my losses are restored and my sorrows end.

Commentary on Sonnet 30: This looking backward and regretting past mistakes over and over again indicates that the poet is growing old, missing his departed friends, sorrowing over a dead romance. De Vere’s lost friends included the Earl of Sussex, the poet Marlowe, his friendly rival Philip Sidney, and even his wifeAnne. But when feeling so depressed, he thinks of his friend, whois probably his son Henry Wriothesley, the feelings of love overcome the feelings of loss and sorrow.

The closeness had to end, however, because if Oxford and Southampton were seen together too much, other people might beginto suspect their true relationship. We have seen in Chapter Threean analysis of Sonnet 36, in which the poet says they must be twain, lest his “bewailed guilt” should bring undeserved shame tohis son. In Sonnet 39, the poet echoes the theme of oneness

116

between father and son, although they must live separately, he can bridge the distance with thoughts of love and admiration.

Sonnet 39O! how thy worth with manners may I sing, When thou art all the better part of me?What can mine own praise to mine own self bring? And what is't but mine own when I praise thee? Even for this, let us divided live,And our dear love lose name of single one, That by this separation I may giveThat due to thee which thou deserv'st alone. O absence! what a torment wouldst thou prove, Were it not thy sour leisure gave sweet leave, To entertain the time with thoughts of love, Which time and thoughts so sweetly doth deceive, And that thou teachest how to make one twain, By praising him here who doth hence remain.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 39Would it be good manners for me to sing your praises when praising you is almost the same as praising myself? Nevertheless,let us live apart, and not flaunt the love that makes us one united soul. Then, being separate from you, I can admire you for your own good qualities, without seeming to be self-serving. O, absence! What a torment would you prove to be, if it were not so that you [absence] give sweet permission to fill lonely leisure time with thoughts of love. Those thoughts give a deceptive pleasure. Absence teaches me how to make our one love two, by praising my loved one here, although he remains elsewhere.

Commentary on Sonnet 39No other interpretation seems to fit this poem as logically as the presumption that the poet is writing to his son – “all the better part of me.” That would not be appropriate for a commoner to write to a noble patron, and it would not make sense for an adult male lover to say that praising another man is like praising himself. The anguish in the poem is best understood as

117

the agony of a father who cannot acknowledge his illegitimate sonwithout hurting the boy and dishonoring his mother.

The divisions at Court were deepening during the 1590’s. When Southampton turned 21 years old without having accepted Lord Burghley’s granddaughter (Elizabeth Vere) for his wife, Burghley imposed on him a monstrous fine of five thousand pounds, which soured the relationship. His friend Robert Devereux, the 2nd Earlof Essex, also resented Burghley’s manipulation of the Queen, so the two earls had an enemy in common. The Queen sent Essex to capture Cadiz in 1596, where he and Southampton destroyed 53 Spanish ships. Essex wanted to reward Southampton for bravery at sea, but the Queen demurred. When she sent Essex to the Azores in1597, Southampton went along. Essex appointed Southampton his Master of the Horse, but the Queen demanded that this unauthorized promotion be rescinded. She was also dissatisfied with the leadership of Essex in this campaign.

Meanwhile, young Southampton had fallen in love with Elizabeth Vernon, one of the Queen’s Maids of Honor. When he learned she was pregnant, he asked permission to marry her, but the Queen wasmore inclined to punish the couple than to assist them.When the two earls (Essex and Southampton) returned from their lackluster military mission to the Azores, Essex arranged for thecouple to be secretly married at Essex House, only about a month before their child was due. As usual, the Queen was furious; she had the couple arrested and sent to Fleet Prison.

Oxford would assuredly have been on the side of the young lovers.This event may have been the catalyst for the lovely Sonnet 116:

Sonnet 116Let me not to the marriage of true mindsAdmit impediments. Love is not loveWhich alters when it alteration finds,Or bends with the remover to remove:O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark,Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not

118

Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come;Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom.If this be error and upon me proved,I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 116When like-minded true souls want to be joined in matrimony, let me not give any reason for them not to be united. Love is not love if it alters whenever a change occurs, or bends to the will of an unjust authority in being removed or removing others [from court]. O, no! It is a fixed point like the North Star, that looks on tempests but is not disturbed by them. It is the guidingstar to every wandering ship – a star whose worth cannot be determined, although we can measure its height. Love cannot be fooled by Time, though youthful rosy lips and cheeks will fall within the circular sweep of Time’s bending sickle [like a scythecutting wheat]. Love does not alter with Time’s brief hours and weeks,but endures as long as life itself. If I am wrong in this matter,and my error is proved, then I never wrote, nor did any man ever love.

Commentary on Sonnet 116The opening lines allude to the wedding ceremony in the Book of Common Prayer, where the minister asks whether anyone knows of any reason this couple should not be joined; “if so, let him speak now, or forever hold his peace.” The ending couplet seems at first glance to be a tacked-on afterthought, but according to Dennis Baron, it contains not only a strong affirmation of undeniable truth, but also holds clues as to the author’s name: “Error,” in Latin, is in errore versare, and the root for “man” is vir (compare virile, manly). The word “writ” comes from the root scrivere.And of course the words never and ever suggest the name “E. Ver.” The theme of the poem – that true love will endure the ravages oftime and never lose its focus – is merely a prediction for the Earl of Southampton, but for Shakespeare, it expresses his beliefin the enduring power of love between soul-mates. Unlike the

119

transient physical attractions like Oxford’s affair with Ann Vavasor, the marriage of “true minds” will not fluctuate over time. This is the kind of love Oxford felt for Queen Elizabeth, and the kind of love that he hoped would grant immortality to their son.

* * * *Chapter 9Disillusionment and Despair

One of the most puzzling aspects of the Shakespeare mystery is the age of the supposed author. As we have seen, several sonnets refer to the poet as old, lame, nearing death, and obsessed with the mortality of his loved ones and himself. Will Shakspere of Stratford was born in April 1564, so in 1597, when he purchased “New Place,” the second-largest house in Stratford, he was only 33 years old. Supposedly he had retired from his writing career, but nothing is known of his whereabouts or activities for the previous decade.

Many years later an actor named Thomas Betterton traveled to Stratford seeking information about the playwright he so much admired. By that time – the early 1700’s -- Will Shakspere was dead, but a few old-timers remembered him. No one living in Stratford at any time had connected their local resident Will Shakspere with the theater or with any kind of writing. However, a townsman told Betterton he had heard Shakspere had received 1,000 pounds from the Earl of Southampton. If that money had beena form of patronage, it would have been to support an author in his writing, not just to finance his retirement. Charlton Ogburn,Jr., feels certain that this money was “hush money” to persuade Will Shakspere to be a “front man” or stand-in for the playwright. This, Ogburn says, was all part of the royal scheme to disconnect the true author from his work, to divert suspicion that the Earl of Oxford might be linked to the plays, and the plays, in turn, might point to characters modeled after people inQueen Elizabeth’s court. Of course, Lord Burghley did not know ofthe existence of the book of Sonnets, or he would certainly have suppressed it.

120

The Earl of Oxford, in 1597, had written to his father-in-law that he was in poor health. He was then 47 years old, 14 years older than his Stratford stand-in. Sonnet 73 states eloquently how it felt to the poet to be growing older, nearing death.

Sonnet 73 That time of year thou may’st in me beholdWhen yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang Upon those boughs which shake against the cold, Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang. In me thou see'st the twilight of such dayAs after sunset fadeth in the west;Which by and by black night doth take away, Death's second self, that seals up all in rest.In me thou see'st the glowing of such fire,That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,As the death-bed, whereon it must expire,Consum'd with that which it was nourish'd by. This thou perceiv'st, which makes thy love more strong, To love that well, which thou must leave ere long.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 73You can see in me the stage of life that corresponds to the autumn of the year, when a few yellow leaves cling to their shaking cold branches, branches like barren church-choirs where recently the sweet birds sang. You can see in me the twilight of the day that fades after sunset in the west, which by and by black night will take away. Night is the second self of Death, which seals everything up in perpetual rest. You can see in me the glowing of a fire that rests on the ashes of its former self,ashes that form a death-bed for the flames. The flames will die on those ashes, being consumed along with the wood that nourishedthem. This you can see, which intensifies your love, to love wellthat which you must leave before long.

Commentary on Sonnet 73This beautiful sonnet has been justly praised for its imagery, its lyrical language, and its brilliant insight. Each quatrain presents one extended metaphor, in descending order of length of time: a season, a day, and a small fire, each approaching its end

121

as the poet seems to be. The ending couplet can be interpreted two ways: “I will love my world more because I will be leaving itsoon,” or, using the general “you” to mean everyone, “We all can see that we love more deeply that person or place that we must leave before long.” The theme is universal enough to speak to allhumanity, yet particular enough so that we believe the poet speaks from his own heart. We can readily believe the ideas come from his own life experience.

As he grows older, the poet becomes more philosophical, as in Sonnet 91. He has looked around at the superficial values and priorities of the typical courtier, and realized that they are worthless to him. His greatest treasure and delight is the love of the addressee, yet a commitment to love always carries with itthe concomitant fear of loss:

Sonnet 91Some glory in their birth, some in their skill, Some in their wealth, some in their body's force, Some in their garments though new-fangled ill; Some in their hawks and hounds, some in their horse; And every humour hath his adjunct pleasure, Wherein it finds a joy above the rest:But these particulars are not my measure,All these I better in one general best.Thy love is better than high birth to me,Richer than wealth, prouder than garments' cost, Of more delight than hawks and horses be; And having thee, of all men's pride I boast: Wretched in this alone, that thou may’st take All this away, and me most wretched make.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 91Some people take great pride in being born into a family of high social rank. Some see glory in accumulating wealth, some in physical prowess, some in fashionable clothing (even if the fashion is silly). Some huntsmen glory in the hawks, hounds, and horses they own. And every individual, of whatever personality ordisposition, has the additional pleasure of thinking his own preferences to be the best. But these things are not what I

122

value. I better all these particular things by adopting a generalconcept of excellence. Your love means more to me than being borninto a noble family. It makes me richer than wealth would, and prouder than costly attire could make me. You delight me more than splendid hawks and horses. And having you, I can boast of having more than all other men have to be proud of. The only thought that discontents me is that you could leave me, taking your love away, making me utterly miserable.

Commentary on Sonnet 91:It is almost impossible to imagine this poem being written by a commoner from Warwickshire. The imagery all points to the vanities of the aristocracy – wealth, breeding, possessions, fashion, and frivolous pursuits. When the poet says that love is better than high birth, his statement implies that he already hasthat good fortune but gets little satisfaction from it. When he compares the possessions of hawks and horses to the delight he takes in his loved one, we can infer that he has owned splendid hunting birds and horses. Since it is well known that an author uses material from his own life to create literature larger than life, we can infer that the poet Shakespeare had close ties to the aristocracy – as Edward De Vere definitely did. Oxfordians are sometimes accused of snobbery for believing that Shakespeare must have been a nobleman, but it is the evidence of the poet’s life experiences revealed in the plays and poems that leads them to this conclusion.

As death approaches, the poet also expresses concern for what others will do when he is gone, leading an observant reader to suspect that the poet’s gloom foreshadows his own impending death. In Sonnets 71 and 72 the poet reverses the conventional plea to remember him, urging instead that it would be best for his loved one to forget him. Sonnet 72 shows a tender fatherly concern over what seems best for his son, but it also contains a famous line indicating the poet’s sorrow over the loss of his name, “my name be buried where my body is.”

Sonnet 72O! lest the world should task you to recite What merit lived in me, that you should love

123

After my death,--dear love, forget me quite,For you in me can nothing worthy prove. Unless you would devise some virtuous lie, To do more for me than mine own desert, And hang more praise upon deceased IThan niggard truth would willingly impart: O! lest your true love may seem false in this That you for love speak well of me untrue, My name be buried where my body is, And live no more to shame nor me nor you. For I am shamed by that which I bring forth, And so should you, to love things nothing worth.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 72O! In case the world should give you the task of listing whatevermerits I might have that you should remember fondly after my death, Dear Love, forget me entirely. For you can find nothing ofany worth to approve in me, unless you make up a well-meaning lie, to give me more praise than I deserve, more praise when I amdead than stingy Truth would be likely to allow. O! In case you speak well of me in a lie, thus making your true love for me seemfalse, let my name be buried where my body is, and not survive toshame me or you. For I am shamed by that which I bring forth, andyou should be ashamed, too, if you love worthless people or things.

Commentary on Sonnet 72This sonnet is addressed to Henry Wriothesley, the son that Edward De Vere cannot acknowledge. A bastard child is the thing the author has “brought forth” that shames him, and that could bring undeserved shame to his son. Shakespeare often uses the expression O! which appears to be an exclamation but which also gives a clue to his true identity. The initial O stands for Oxford [Edward De Vere signed his early poetry “E.O.” for “EdwardOxenford” and he also signed some of his personal letters as “Edward Oxenford.”] The O can also represent a zero, or nothing. When he was feeling discouraged or downtrodden by his powerful enemies, he felt like a zero, or nothing. Thus the wordplay in

124

the couplet implies “you should not love me because I am worth nothing, and even my name has been turned into nothing.”

Oxford’s anger over having his name obliterated spills forth in Sonnet 111, in which he, the poet, brilliantly compares his situation to that of a dyer whose hand becomes submerged to what it works in. The hands that created marvelous works of literatureare now submerged under a false name that denies the true author credit for his immortal literary creations. Probably this anger is directed at Queen Elizabeth, who has sacrificed Edward in order to protect her own false image. In Shakespeare’s time, the words “dear friend” were used for a deeply loved person as well as an acquaintance.

Sonnet 111O! for my sake do you with Fortune chide, The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds, That did not better for my life provideThan public means which public manners breeds. Thence comes it that my name receives a brand, And almost thence my nature is subdued To what it works in, like the dyer's hand: Pity me, then, and wish I were renewed; Whilst, like a willing patient, I will drink Potions of eisell 'gainst my strong infection; No bitterness that I will bitter think,Nor double penance, to correct correction. Pity me then, dear friend, and I assure ye, Even that your pity is enough to cure me.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 111O! Are you scolding the goddess of Fortune for my sake – that guilty goddess that did not provide me with better luck than thatwhich I gain from public recognition, and for which I have had toadopt the manners of commoners? Because of this, my name becomes a brand, like the name of a product, and my personal worth is subordinated to the value of what I work in, like the dyer’s handtaking on the color of the dye. Pity me then, and wish I might berenewed, while I act like a patient willingly drinking potions ofbitter medicine to cure an infection. There is no bitterness that

125

I will think bitter enough to do penance or to correct my condition of being corrected. Pity me then, Dear Friend, and I assure you that your pity alone is enough to cure me.

Commentary on Sonnet 111The references to “public means” and “public manners” are often cited as proof that the author of Shakespeare’s sonnets was an ordinary man who wrote for the public stage. But the tone of complaint and the appeal to pity would not have been fitting for a commoner who could expect nothing more than the approval of thepublic. He would not complain about having “public manners” if such comportment was all he had ever known, and he would not complain about receiving a “brand” that disguises his work, if hehad not been forced to use a pseudonym. For a nobleman, however, being reduced to producing plays for the public rather than for the Court, and therefore being criticized for commonness, would be an affront to his pride. Oxford’s father-in-law, Lord Burghley, deplored his keeping company with low-life actors and commercial playwrights. And he was probably the strongest influence prevailing upon the Queen to disavow her former lover along with the son that might have become her heir. It was in Burghley’s self-interest to keep the Queen’s children a secret, to eliminate the influence they might have if she named one of them as her successor.

Burghley had grown wealthy through his association with the Queenand the lucrative offices to which she appointed him. He had grown rich by assessing fines on his wards, managing their property to his advantage, and taking bribes from those who wished access to the Queen. He was wily enough, and unscrupulous enough, to destroy any person who could possibly pose a threat tohis power.

Since the death of her lover Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, the Queen had been treating Robert Devereux, the Second Earl of Essex, rather like a spoiled child. She forgave him again and again for offenses that she would have treated harshly if they had come from anyone else. At one time when they quarreled, she had boxed him on the ear, and he had drawn his sword in her presence, saying he would not take that insult from

126

anyone. Although other courtiers stopped him, he developed a reputation for being hot-headed. But his military success at the battle of Cadiz had made him popular with the public, and he expected the Queen to continue her favored treatment of him. Whenshe did not renew his license to collect import fees on sweet wines, he tried to see her but was blocked by Burghley.

This incident triggered the Essex rebellion of 1601. Essex rode his horse through London streets with a few of his friends, crying out against a proposed Spanish marriage, hoping to rally English citizens in his cause, and demanding to see the Queen. His friend Southampton, who had strong grievances against Burghley and a few against the Queen for opposing his marriage, joined Essex out of loyalty. History records this fiasco, which resulted in a trial of Essex and Southampton, along with a few other friends involved in the plot.

Those of us who believe Oxford was the father of Southampton can imagine the horror Oxford felt when his son was accused of treason. To make matters worse, he was one of the peers assigned to judge the rebels, who were certain to be convicted when Burghley could control the trial and Elizabeth remained out of sight.

In other sonnets, we can see the father forgiving the son for stealing his mistress and other escapades – even excusing him more than he deserved, as shown in Sonnet 40:

Sonnet 40 Take all my loves, my love, yea take them all; What hast thou then more than thou hadst before? No love, my love, that thou may’st true love call; All mine was thine, before thou hadst this more. Then, if for my love, thou my love receivest, I cannot blame thee, for my love thou usest; But yet be blam'd, if thou thy self deceivest By wilful taste of what thyself refusest.I do forgive thy robbery, gentle thief,Although thou steal thee all my poverty: And yet, love knows it is a greater grief

127

To bear love's wrong, than hate's known injury. Lascivious grace, in whom all ill well shows, Kill me with spites, yet we must not be foes.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 40Take all my loves, My Love – yes, take them all, and you still would not have anything more than you already had--nothing that you might call true love, My Love. All that I had was yours, before you had this more. But if for my love, you receive my mistress, I cannot blame you for using her. But do not deceive yourself if you taste of her love while refusing my love. I forgive your robbery; you have only stolen my poverty. Yet it is harder to bear a wrong from a loved one than an injury from an enemy. Lustful prince, who makes all sin show well, kill me with petty injustices, but we must not be foes.

Commentary on Sonnet 40This poem shows the indulgence Oxford showed to Henry Wriothesleyafter he had an affairwith Oxford’s mistress. The poem expresses exquisite irony in theoxymorons “gentle thief” and“lascivious grace,” as in the line about stealing all his poverty. There is also profound wisdomin the lines “And yet love knows it is a greater grief/ To bear love’s wrong, than hate’s known injury.” A small betrayal by one we love hurts more than a vicious injury from an enemy. Asensitive soul like Oxford would have felt exactly such pangs, and also have been willing to forgive the son in whom “all ill well shows,” another clever playon words.

But when he participated in a rebellion that might be perceived as traitorous, Henry Wriothesley had gone too far. Using the symbolism of a rose, which Shakespeare often used to describe either the Queen or Southampton, the poet accuses him of bad behavior tantamount to corruption. Sonnet 95, addressed to Southampton, shows anger at the boy’s foolhardiness.

128

Sonnet 95How sweet and lovely dost thou make the shame Which, like a canker in the fragrant rose, Doth spot the beauty of thy budding name! O! in what sweets dost thou thy sins enclose. That tongue that tells the story of thy days, Making lascivious comments on thy sport, Cannot dispraise, but in a kind of praise; Naming thy name blesses an ill report.O! what a mansion have those vices got Which for their habitation chose out thee, Where beauty's veil doth cover every blot And all things turns to fair that eyes can see! Take heed, dear heart, of this large privilege; The hardest knife ill-used doth lose his edge.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 95You seem to make shame sweet and lovely, but it is like a canker in the fragrant rose, that spots your beauty and sullies your good name. O! How you cover your sins with a pleasant exterior. Even when gossips tell of your misbehavior, they cannot dispraiseyou without seeming to praise you, because mentioning your name makes a bad report seem good. O! Your vices live in a mansion where their stains are covered with beauty’s veil, and your external beauty makes us believe you are beautiful throughout. But take this warning, Dear Heart. You have a great privilege, because people want to see you in the fairest light, but if you misuse it, like a sharp knife, you can dull the edge and lose your advantage.

Commentary on Sonnet 95:The “budding name” suggests Wriothesley, pronounced “Risley” or “Rosely.” The rose symbolically suggests the blending of the families of York and Lancaster, whose symbols were a white rose and a red rose, into the Tudor line. Thus Elizabeth and her father Henry were sometimes called the “Tudor Rose,” and some people have referred to Henry Wriothesley as the “Tudor Prince.”

The rose imagery is rather thoroughly explored in Sonnet 99, along with other flowers that represent the various beautiful

129

features of the Fair Youth. But looking at the situation in whichSouthampton seemed doomed, although he was not a traitor, the poet deplores the abuse of power that distorts a record in order to destroy a rival.

Sonnet 99The forward violet thus did I chide:Sweet thief, whence didst thou steal thy sweet that smells, If not from my love's breath? The purple prideWhich on thy soft cheek for complexion dwells In my love's veins thou hast too grossly dy'd.The lily I condemned for thy hand,And buds of marjoram had stol'n thy hair;The roses fearfully on thorns did stand,One blushing shame, another white despair;A third, nor red nor white, had stol'n of both,And to his robbery had annex'd thy breath;But, for his theft, in pride of all his growthA vengeful canker eat him up to death.More flowers I noted, yet I none could see,But sweet, or colour it had stol'n from thee.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 99I scolded the bold violet this way: Sweet thief, where did you get your fragrance if not from my loved one’s breath, and the purple pride of your soft petals is like the royal purple blood in my loved one’s veins. I condemned the lily for taking its color from your hand, and the marjoram buds for curling like yourhair. The roses stood fearfully on their thorns, one blushing red, the other white as in despair. A third, neither red nor white, had stolen of both, and in addition to that robbery had taken its scent from your breath. But in retaliation for his theft, and for envy of his proud growth, a vengeful canker worm ate this bud to death. I saw other flowers, but all of them seemed to have stolen their color and sweetness from you.

Commentary on Sonnet 99:This sonnet uses the conventional device of comparing the loved one to various flowers and declaring that his beauty equals or exceeds theirs. It is not as well crafted as many other sonnets,

130

especially because it shifts from the third person (it, they) to the second person (you, thee, thy) quite erratically. What is of interest to us here, however, is the symbolism of the “vengeful canker” eating the rosebud to death. This shocking image can be understood as the poet’s bitterness at seeing his son being punished with a death sentence, a punishment that far exceeded the alleged crime.

Oxford had seen injustices in the courts a number of times. His uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, had been beheaded as a traitor for his involvement in the Babington Plot, but Oxford knew his uncle was loyal to Queen Elizabeth. Similarly, Oxford witnessed the trial of Mary Queen of Scots, and he may have been among those who suspected that her confiscated letters had been forged by enemies who wanted her dead. Her defense was eloquent enough to have been the inspiration for Portia’s speech regarding the “quality of mercy” in Shakespeare’s play, The Merchant of Venice.

Both Essex and Southampton testified that they had intended no harm to the Queen. They merely wanted to confront those of Elizabeth’s advisors – Burghley and his minions -- who were controlling her by keeping her in fear of her life. Oxford knew that Essex was headstrong and that Southampton was naively loyal to him, but they were both loyal to Queen Elizabeth and to England. Their enemies, however, were powerful and determined to destroy them.

Oxford could do very little to protect the foolish young rebels, but he believed Elizabeth would show mercy to Henry, who had beenonly a follower, not a leader, in the rebellion. He seems to be giving Elizabeth advice in Sonnet 146, even as he chides her for her vanity. Elizabeth was in her late sixties, but still maintaining the appearance that she thought befitted a queen.

Sonnet 146 Poor soul, the centre of my sinful earth,[Resist ] these rebel powers that thee array, [“resist” suggestedto fill blank spot] Why dost thou pine within and suffer dearth,

131

Painting thy outward walls so costly gay?Why so large cost, having so short a lease,Dost thou upon thy fading mansion spend?Shall worms, inheritors of this excess,Eat up thy charge? Is this thy body's end?Then soul, live thou upon thy servant's loss,And let that pine to aggravate thy store;Buy terms divine in selling hours of dross;Within be fed, without be rich no more:So shall thou feed on Death, that feeds on men,And Death once dead, there's no more dying then.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 146Poor Soul, the center of my world, resist the rebel powers that surround you. Why do you pine away and suffer from insufficient nourishment, painting your face with costly cosmetics to make it look happy? Why spend so much on your fading mansion (body) when you have only a short while left to live in it? Shall you permit worms to inherit the result of your excessive spending and eat upthe flesh you are trying to preserve? Is this the end you want for your body? Then, Soul, live upon your body’s loss, and let itprovide nourishment for you to store up. Buy divine blessings in exchange for a few hours of dregs, so you will be fed spirituallyrather than making a rich external display on your body. So you shall feed on Death, that has fed on men’s bodies. And once you have devoured Death, there will be no more dying.

Commentary on Sonnet 146An error in the printing of Sonnet 146 leaves a blank spot to be emended by the reader. Assuming that this sonnet was addressed toElizabeth when her advisors were surrounding her and keeping her dependent on them, a logical emendation (“resist”) could be read as a plea to remain free from their evil influence. If the Queen uses her own best judgment, she will be merciful and find herselfwelcome in Heaven, having defeated Death in mortal combat.

Still hoping to persuade Elizabeth to do the right thing and pardon Southampton, Oxford holds up an ideal of a powerful personwho uses slow and careful deliberation to reach a decision. One

132

who could do harm but restrains himself (or herself) is much to be admired. And a person who has begun his life honorably, but ended it dishonorably, could be worse than one who was bad to begin with.

Sonnet 94They that have power to hurt, and will do none, That do not do the thing they most do show, Who, moving others, are themselves as stone, Unmoved, cold, and to temptation slow; They rightly do inherit heaven's graces, And husband nature's riches from expense; They are the lords and owners of their faces, Others, but stewards of their excellence. The summer's flower is to the summer sweet, Though to itself, it only live and die,But if that flower with base infection meet, The basest weed outbraves his dignity: For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds; Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 94Those who have the power to harm others but refrain from misusingtheir power, who choose not to exercise power for a show of might, who move others to action but move themselves with dispassionate, slow deliberation – they properly merit the gracesof heaven, and prudently manage nature’s riches without squandering them. These self-disciplined persons are masters of themselves and their reputations, whereas others are but caretakers of their excellence. The sweet flower enhances the summer, but if it becomes infected, even a lowly weed will prove hardier. For sweetest things become sourest when they do wrong, like lilies that fester and smell far worse than weeds.

Commentary on Sonnet 94This sonnet has been interpreted as advice to the Fair Youth not to be promiscuous, and of course that is a reasonable interpretation. But since the main theme is the proper use of power and authority, it seems more likely to be addressed to a powerful person. Oxford’s biographer Dorothy Ogburn believes the

133

model for this ideal was Horatio Vere, a cousin of Edward De Vere. The poem also offers an alternative to the advice in Niccolo Machiavelli’s book The Prince, which advocated the cynical use of power. While Machiavelli was expounding a system of amoralpolitical craftiness in Italy, his contemporary Baldassare Castiglione was writing Il Cortegiano (the Courtier), developing an idealism that blended the Medieval codes of chivalry and the refined manners of the Renaissance. Oxford, when he was only 21 years old, had written a preface in elegant Latin for BartholomewClerke’s translation of The Courtier from Italian into classic Latin. In that preface he commended Clerke for dedicating his work to “our illustrious and noble Queen, in whom all courtly qualities are personified.” In his youthful ardor and adoration of the Queen, Oxford wrote, “there is no pen so skillful, no kindof speech so clear, that is not left behind by her own surpassingvirtue.” He praised the wisdom of the translator who had sought apatroness “of surpassing virtue, of wisest mind, of soundest religion, and cultivated in the highest degree in learning and inliterary studies.” Oxford himself embodied the ideals of Castiglione’s courtier, and he hoped to appeal to similar ideals in the Queen.

As the trial progressed, and it appeared that Essex and Southampton had no chance to escape a death sentence, Oxford intensified his efforts to a leave a legacy of poetry for his hapless son. In Sonnet 55, he recalls some monarchs’ efforts to build lasting monuments, but he boldly asserts that literature will outlast them all.

Sonnet 55Not marble, nor the gilded monumentsOf princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme; But you shall shine more bright in these contents Than unswept stone, besmear'd with sluttish time. When wasteful war shall statues overturn,And broils root out the work of masonry,Nor Mars his sword, nor war's quick fire shall burn The living record of your memory.'Gainst death, and all oblivious enmity

134

Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room Even in the eyes of all posterityThat wear this world out to the ending doom. So, till the judgment that yourself arise,You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 55The marble and gilded monuments of princes shall not outlive thispowerful rhyme, but you shall shine in this poem more brightly than unswept stone, besmeared with dirt over time. When wasteful war overturns statues, and brawls uproot brick walls, neither thesword of Mars nor the fires of war shall destroy the living record of your memory. You shall pace forth against death and alluncomprehending hatred. Your praise shall be seen in the eyes of posterity until the world wears out. So, until the Judgment Day when you yourself arise, you will live in this poetry, and dwell in the eyes of those who love you.

Commentary on Sonnet 55: This famous poem is addressed to Henry Wriothesley, promising him the immortality of literature when hisearly death seems inevitable. The craftsmanship of the poet seemsto be at its apex, creating vivid pictures of destructive forces of war—overturning statues, rooting out the mason’s creation. Theallusion to mythology in the sword of Mars elevates the tone. Thesymbolism of marble and gilded monuments, make an elegant contrast to the stone step that time has worn smooth with dirt and grinding footsteps, a common step-stone that can gleam like ashining memorial through eternity -- or at least to the ending doom of the world and the day of judgment.

A similar theme shapes Sonnet 65. But it seems more subdued, moreready to accept Southampton’s vulnerability and probable death ata young age. Yet still Oxford continues to hope for a miracle.

Sonnet 65 Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea, But sad mortality o'ersways their power,How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea, Whose action is no stronger than a flower? O! how shall summer's honey breath hold out,

135

Against the wrackful siege of battering days, When rocks impregnable are not so stout, Nor gates of steel so strong but Time decays? O fearful meditation! where, alack,Shall Time's best jewel from Time's chest lie hid? Or what strong hand can hold his swift foot back? Or who his spoil of beauty can forbid?O! none, unless this miracle have might,That in black ink my love may still shine bright.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 65Mortality overpowers brass, stone, earth, and boundless sea. How can mere beauty, like a fragile flower, stand a chance against this rage? How can the scent of summer hold out against a torturous attack of battering days, when even impregnable rocks are not stout enough or gates of steel strong enough to prevent decay? O, awful thought! Where, alas, can we hide Time’s best jewel? What strong hand can hold back his swift foot? Who can forbid his spoiling of beauty? O, none, unless I achieve this miracle, making my love shine bright in this black ink.

Commentary on Sonnet 65 Here the poet passionately rails against the mortality we all face, but the thought (meditation) that a son might die before his father does seems especially doleful and ironic. Desperately,the father casts about for a way to delay the death-sentence of “Time’s best jewel,” his handsome son. Powerless to do so, he reaches for the miracle that the son might still “shine bright” in the “black ink” that will preserve his memory.

Oxford had long ago forgiven Elizabeth’s romantic betrayals, but he was becoming deeply disillusioned by what he perceived as her betrayal of their son. Contrast Sonnet 152, probably written whenhe was in his fifties, with the exuberant praise he had lavished on her at age 21 in the preface to The Courtier :

Sonnet 152In loving thee thou know'st I am forsworn, But thou art twice forsworn, to me love swearing; In act thy bed-vow broke, and new faith torn,

136

In vowing new hate after new love bearing: But why of two oaths' breach do I accuse thee, When I break twenty? I am perjured most; For all my vows are oaths but to misuse thee, And all my honest faith in thee is lost:For I have sworn deep oaths of thy deep kindness, Oaths of thy love, thy truth, thy constancy; And, to enlighten thee, gave eyes to blindness, Or made them swear against the thing they see; For I have sworn thee fair; more perjured I, To swear against the truth so foul a lie!

Paraphrase of Sonnet 152In loving you, you know I am breaking my vows, but you broke twice as many, swearing to love me, but breaking your bed-vow, and in tearing apart my faith by hating me when you found a new love. But why do I accuse you of breaking two vows, when I break twenty? I am the most blameworthy, for all my vows have been oaths to exploit you, and all my honest faith in you is lost. ForI have sworn deep oaths of your deep kindness, oaths of your love, your truth, your constancy. To make you look brighter, I have even pretended not to see what I saw, or made my eyes swear against what they actually saw. For I have sworn that you are fair, so I am the more at fault, to tell such a foul lie and swear it is the truth.

Commentary on Sonnet 152Apparently Oxford managed to see Elizabeth during the trial, perhaps going to plead with her to show mercy toward Southampton.They both knew that Oxford had to be deceptive with his peers to prevent them from learning the truth about his relationship to Southampton. He is torn between his desire to be truthful and hisdesire to protect both the Queen and his son.

Apparently in this visit he discovered that he still loved her, and Sonnet 150 reveals his conflicted feelings.

Sonnet 150 O! from what power hast thou this powerful might, With insufficiency my heart to sway?

137

To make me give the lie to my true sight, And swear that brightness doth not grace the day? Whence hast thou this becoming of things ill, That in the very refuse of thy deedsThere is such strength and warrantise of skill, That, in my mind, thy worst all best exceeds? Who taught thee how to make me love thee more, The more I hear and see just cause of hate? O! though I love what others do abhor,With others thou shouldst not abhor my state: If thy unworthiness raised love in me, More worthy I to be beloved of thee.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 150O! What divine force has given you the potent power to sway my heart so easily? To make me give the lie to what I see, and swearthat the day has no brightness. How are you able to make bad things seem attractive, so that even the crumbs from your deeds show such strength and warranty of skill, that in my mind, the worst things about you seem to be better than the best of any other. Who taught you how to make me love you more, the more I hear and see good reasons for hating you? O! though I love what others hate in you, you should not put me into the enemy camp. Ifyour unworthiness caused me to love you, then I am more worthy ofbeing loved by you.

Apparently in their confrontation, Elizabeth accused Oxford of not loving her. His protest in Sonnet 149 shows a passionate agitation.

Sonnet 149Canst thou, O cruel! say I love thee not, When I against myself with thee partake? Do I not think on thee, when I forgotAm of myself, all tyrant, for thy sake? Who hateth thee that I do call my friend, On whom frown'st thou that I do fawn upon, Nay, if thou lour'st on me, do I not spend Revenge upon myself with present moan? What merit do I in my self respect,

138

That is so proud thy service to despise, When all my best doth worship thy defect, Commanded by the motion of thine eyes? But, love, hate on, for now I know thy mind, Those that can see, thou lov'st, and I am blind.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 149O, cruel one, how can you say I do not love you, when I side withyou against myself? Am I not thinking of you when I have forgotten to be myself, being all tyrant for your sake? Who do you hate that I consider a friend? Who do you frown upon that I fawn upon? No, if you look disapprovingly upon me, do I not take revenge against myself and immediately apologize? Have I not doneservice to you, even at the cost of my self-respect? Haven’t I given you my best and worshipped even your flaws? A glance from your eyes is enough to command me. But Love, hate on, for now I know what you think. Those that can see, you love, and I am blind.

Commentary on Sonnet 149 The complexity of emotions in this sonnet shows the complexity ofthe man who wrote it. As an idealist, he clearly hates dissembling (his name means “true” and he takes that seriously). Yet loyalty to Queen and country demands that he swear the false to be true, and the true to be false. His feelings of being unappreciated, his resentment at having his loyalty questioned, and his frustration at still wanting the love and approval of theQueen – these lead him to a cynical conclusion that he cannot winher approval, but he is still blind to her imperfections.

There must have been tears and recriminations, perhaps bitter accusations, and a serious attempt to come to an understanding. Who has hurt the other most? Oxford, as the poet Shakespeare, seems to be suggesting a mutual forgiveness in Sonnet 120.

Sonnet 120That you were once unkind befriends me now, And for that sorrow, which I then did feel, Needs must I under my transgression bow, Unless my nerves were brass or hammer'd steel.

139

For if you were by my unkindness shaken, As I by yours, you've passed a hell of time; And I, a tyrant, have no leisure takenTo weigh how once I suffered in your crime. O! that our night of woe might have remembered My deepest sense, how hard true sorrow hits, And soon to you, as you to me, then tendered The humble salve, which wounded bosoms fits! But that your trespass now becomes a fee; Mine ransoms yours, and yours must ransom me.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 120You were cruel to me once, so now I am justified in asking you toforgive my injury to you, and the sorrow you once caused me should cancel out any sorrow you feel on my account. My nerves are not made of brass or hammered steel, and yours are not either, so if you felt pain equal to mine, you’ve passed a hell of time. I am now the tyrant, and I have no time to weigh my former suffering. O! I wish that our night of woe might have reminded me how hard true sorrow hits, and offered to you, as youto me, the salve that might heal a wounded heart. But now we mustconsider ourselves even. My trespass pays for the trespass you made against me, and yours pays for mine against you.

Commentary on Sonnet 120The suffering these two lovers have undergone – each feeling betrayed by the other, and both agonizing over the fate of their child. The joy he had brought to his father – the pride he must have brought to his mother -- now was far outweighed by the deep grief and bitter disappointment they were feeling as he faced execution for treason.

The verdict was foreordained, and Oxford had to comply with it dutifully even though his heart was breaking. Both Essex and Southampton were pronounced guilty by the tribunal of judges. Essex went to his execution still professing his love for his Queen and country, but bowing to the unassailable power of his enemies at Court. Robert Cecil, however, intervened to plead withthe Queen for the life of Southampton. As a result his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

140

Southampton was still in the Tower prison in 1603 when Queen Elizabeth died, in her 70th year, after a 45-year reign. Most scholars agree that Sonnet 107 contains topical references to that event. The “mortal moon” is almost certainly Queen Elizabeth, and her “eclipse” is her death. The incertainties that“crown themselves assured,” are interpreted as the anxieties overthe succession, since Elizabeth had not named an heir to the throne, which were allayed when King James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots, ascended the throne of England as King James the 1st. This sonnet can then quite definitely be dated at March of 1603.

Sonnet 107Not mine own fears, nor the prophetic soul Of the wide world dreaming on things to come, Can yet the lease of my true love control, Supposed as forfeit to a confined doom. The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured, And the sad augurs mock their own presage; Incertainties now crown themselves assured, And peace proclaims olives of endless age. Now with the drops of this most balmy time, My love looks fresh, and Death to me subscribes, Since, spite of him, I'll live in this poor rhyme, While he insults o'er dull and speechless tribes: And thou in this shalt find thy monument, When tyrants' crests and tombs of brass are spent.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 107Not my own fears, nor the prophets of the wide world imagining things to come, can yet manage the release of my true love, who is confined, condemned to death, and expected to forfeit his life. The mortal moon (Queen Elizabeth) has endured her eclipse (death), and the sad mourners who prophesied her death pretend they had not foretold it. The uncertainty about the next monarch to be crowned has now been replaced by assurance, and peace proclaims that olive branches will grow endlessly. Now with the anointment in this balmy time, my Love looks fresh, and Death is underwriting my death warrant, but in spite of Death, I’ll live

141

in this poor rime, while he delivers his death blows to ignorant tribes that lack a written literature. And you in this shall findyour monument, even after tyrants’ crests and brass tombs are worn out completely.

Commentary on Sonnet 107Although the old Queen and the new King are easily identified, who are the sad augurs, and who is the loved one who is confined and doomed? William Cecil, Lord Burghley, had died in 1598, aftergrooming his son Robert Cecil to replace him in Elizabeth’s court. Robert could see the Queen’s weakening health and could foresee her demise, and so to secure his current position with her successor, he had been secretly negotiating with James VI of Scotland to assure a smooth and peaceful transition. It was Robert Cecil who asked Elizabeth on her deathbed whether she approved of her nephew James as her successor, and Robert claimedthat she had nodded her assent. So Robert Cecil was probably one of the sad augurs. The person “forfeit to a confined doom” was Oxford’s son, the Third Earl of Southampton, who was truly loved.

Shortly after Scotland’s King James VI came to the English throneas King James I, he ordered the release of Southampton along withthe restoration of his title and property. This release was arranged by Robert Cecil, who had transferred his services to thenew king. Robert Cecil was still the brother-in-law of Edward De Vere, and the uncle of his three daughters. He was probably able to convince King James that Southampton would never attempt to claim the throne. Southampton, too, would have promised never to reveal his parentage, because he hated the power struggles of theCourt. Shortly thereafter he moved his family to the countryside and lived contentedly there as his children grew up. King James also renewed the 1,000 pounds annuity that Elizabeth had providedfor Oxford to maintain his theatrical company, for he, like Elizabeth, was a lover of drama who especially admired Shakespeare’s plays. But Oxford was not very well, and he sensed that he did not have long to live. Sonnet 66 reviews his life andalso shows that he is prepared to end it.

Sonnet 66 Tired with all these, for restful death I cry,

142

As to behold desert a beggar born,And needy nothing trimm'd in jollity,And purest faith unhappily forsworn,And gilded honour shamefully misplac'd, And maiden virtue rudely strumpeted,And right perfection wrongfully disgrac'd, And strength by limping sway disabled And art made tongue-tied by authority, And folly, doctor-like, controlling skill, And simple truth miscall'd simplicity,And captive good attending captain ill: Tir'd with all these, from these would I be gone, Save that, to die, I leave my love alone.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 66 This poem summarizes the disappointments and disillusionments in the poet’s life of as the end approaches. He has grown weary of the wrongs he sees about him – the most deserving people seem treated like beggars, while those who have everything they need trim themselves in finery and occupy themselves in idle frivolity. He has unhappily given up his childhood faith [of Catholicism], and seen golden honors shamefully awarded to dishonorable people. He has seen maiden virtue prostituted in an unrefined manner, and the attempt at becoming righteously perfectis twisted into undeserved disgrace. His strength has been disabled by a limp, and his art has been silenced by persons in authority. Foolishness is controlling those who have higher skills, like doctors. Simple truth is being dismissed as simple-minded, and goodness is bound up like a captive, whereas badness rules like a captain. Tired of all these, he would leave this world behind, but he does not want to leave his Love alone.

Commentary on Sonnet 66This catalog of the world’s wrongs, reminiscent of Hamlet’s soliloquy on death, corresponds amazingly to the experiences of Edward De Vere. He has seen the shallowness of Court life underlying all the glitter; the rewards given to scoundrels like Leicester and Burghley while harmless lovers were being punished for disobedience; he has given up the Catholicism of his

143

formative years to become a loyal Protestant for the Queen. He has felt the sting of undeserved scandal and disgrace; his strength has been weakened by a wound. The “maiden virtue rudely strumpeted” could refer to Ann Vavasor, who came to court as a maiden but seduced many men, sometimes for money. Or it could be a metaphor for the false image of the “virgin queen” packaged andsold to the world as if it were unvarnished truth. Most revealingof all, however, is the line about “art made tongue-tied by authority.” Surely this fits Edward De Vere more accurately than it fits any other poet of his time. But who is the “love” that would be left alone if he died? Probably not Southampton, who wasa married man and a father. Certainly not Elizabeth, who was never alone unless she chose to be. A more likely candidate wouldbe the second Countess of Oxford, who would have to raise her sonalone if her Lord succumbed to death.

Oxford did succumb to death in June of 1604, presumably of the plague, but there is still some mystery surrounding the event. Nowill of Oxford’s has ever been found, although his Countess left one that is still extant. (Interestingly, her will provided for an annual sum to be paid to “my dombe man,” which may have been “hush money” paid to Will Shakspere of Stratford.) Moreover, Southampton was arrested on the night of Oxford’s death but released the following day after questioning by the King. Presumably he provided assurance that he would not reveal his father’s identity or any connection his father had with the worksof Shakespeare. Oxford’s burial was a quiet family affair at Hackney Church, unlike that of his first wife Anne Cecil, who wasburied at Westminster Abbey. The absence of a funeral also suggests that powerful authorities feared any orations by Oxford’s friends who might let it slip that they knew of his workand his pseudonyms. A few, like Ben Jonson, also knew of his relationship to Southampton, but kept the secret to themselves.

It is well known by now that it was Susan, the youngest daughter of Edward De Vere, along with her husband and brother-in law, theearls of Montgomery and Pembroke, who instigated the publication of the First Folio of Shakespeare’s plays in 1623. By that time, most of the persons from Elizabeth’s court that Oxford had used

144

as models for dramatic characters had died. Even his stand-in haddied. So it seemed safe, for the first time, to honor that geniuswho had done more for the English language and the glory of England than any writer before or since. Of course, the subterfuge was still being maintained, because Southampton and his heirs were still living. Even then, Ben Jonson’s dedication of the First Folio was deliberately ambiguous, because “Sweet Swan of Avon” could have referred to Oxford, who owned a house onthe Avon River.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the book of sonnets had been discovered almost by accident after Oxford’s widow sold her home in 1608. Then it was published by Thomas Thorpe in 1609. Southampton or King James may have learned of its publication andsuppressed any further sales, because we hear no more of the sonnet book until it was republished in 1640 by a Mr. John Benson, not to be confused with the playwright Ben Jonson, who had died two years earlier.

Meanwhile, the Third Earl of Southampton served King James I, notably participating in saving for the crown the American colonynamed “Virginia” in honor of Queen Elizabeth. But he antagonized an ambitious courtier of King James, the Duke of Buckingham, who had succeeded Robert Cecil upon his death in 1612. Buckingham andthe Crown Prince, Charles, influenced King James to execute Walter Raleigh in 1518, on a dubious charge of treason. Francis Bacon had been effectively removed from parliament in 1620 with spurious charges of bribery, to die broken-hearted in 1626 [some reports say the death date was faked]. When Southampton and his son were fighting for the King in the Low Countries in 1624, bothof them died, supposedly of a fever. Yet a physician of the King later said Buckingham had boasted that he had them poisoned. Thusended any possibility of a revival of the Tudor line, and any competition Buckingham might have had from Raleigh or Bacon or other principals from the court of Elizabeth I. He and the crown prince then took control of the government until King James died in 1625.

Shakespeare, through the medium of the 17th Earl of Oxford, understood the workings of the world: how mighty empires rise and

145

fall, how the seats of power wobble precariously on the spindly legs of chance, how wealth can corrupt as easily as it can be dissipated, how hollow a military victory can be. He also understood the workings of the human heart: how fragile a good name can be, how malicious slander can be, how love can ennoble the lover and hate can destroy the hater. He learned how hard true sorrow hits, and how the salve of forgiveness heals even themost painful wounds.

However deep the wounds from Elizabeth cut into his soul, she stimulated his creativity. The sense of humor that brought laughter to her court also helped him to keep his perspective andalleviate his spells of depression. Armed with a keen sense of the absurd, he could retaliate in good fun against those who tried to discredit him. He flourished under her royal protection;she blossomed under his loyal affection.

And thus it became possible for Edward De Vere to leave a greaterlegacy than that which he proposed for his son. True enough, he has made the Third Earl of Southampton famous merely by being associated with the name of William Shakespeare. But he has also immortalized his own work and enriched the entire civilized worldwith the fruits of his genius. I like to think that Sonnet 74 is addressed to all of us who have patiently rooted out the truth from the mounds of compost and confusion, so that we, like Hamlet’s Horatio, can restore his wounded name.

Sonnet 74But be contented when that fell arrest Without all bail shall carry me away,My life hath in these lines some interest, Which for memorial still with thee shall stay. When thou reviewest this, thou dost review The very part was consecrate to thee: The earth can have but earth, which is his due; My spirit is thine, the better part of me: So then thou hast but lost the dregs of life, The prey of worms, my body being dead; The coward conquest of a wretch's knife, Too base, of thee to be remembered. [too lowly to be

146

remembered by you]The worth of that is that which it contains, [the worth of myspirit is what it contains] And that is this, and this with thee remains. [you have my soul, the better part of me ]

Yes, Shakespeare was right, as he so often was. All the breathersof the Elizabethan Era are now dead. But Shakespeare lives.

Chapter 10Comparing a De Vere Poem and Sonnet 87

This book began with a supposition: What if the rumors about Oxford’s love affair with Queen Elizabeth were true? And what if he had expressed his emotions in sonnets shared with a few friends, but later published under the pen name of “William Shakespeare?” Then what could the sonnets tell us about the author’s personal life?

As we have seen, the sonnets can tell us a great deal about the life of Edward De Vere (Oxford) or more precisely, the life of Edward De Vere tells us a great deal about the content of the sonnets.

Oxford began writing poetry at an early age and published some ofit under his own initials (E.O. for “Edward Oxenford”) or under aposy (a motto or phrase used in place of a poet’s own name, but known by his friends to belong to him). Oxfordians believe that this youthful poetry is typical of what we might expect to see inthe early works of a great literary talent. Yet some others thinkit doesn’t match closely enough. That evidence alone cannot settle the question of authorship, but it does strengthen the case for Oxford. Will Shakspere of Stratford left no evidence whatsoever of any early literary efforts.

We know that Oxford turned to writing poetry and plays when he was suffering, grieving, or even euphorically happy. One poem of his, printed in the anthology A Hundredth Sundrie Flowres is worth printing in full for the light it casts onto Sonnet 87

147

(“Farewell! Thou art too dear for my possessing”), which has beensubject to a great variety of interpretations.

Oxford’s poem “Farewell with a Mischief” carries an introduction explaining why the poem was written. We may assume that it addresses Queen Elizabeth, the “dame of high calling” and that the “playfellow of baser condition” is Christopher Hatton, a commoner who worked his way into Elizabeth’s court as a military officer and advanced to become the captain of her bodyguard in1572. He dressed well and danced well, became her lover, and seemed willing to wait indefinitely in fervent hope of becoming her only favorite, perhaps even to marry her. To other courtiers,Hatton seemed to be aspiring far above his station in life, and thus he became a comic figure to them. Hatton is believed to havebeen the model for the beleaguered comic character Malvolio in Shakespeare’s play Twelfth Night.

Oxford wrote this poem while the emotions of anger and grief werestill raging, shortly after Elizabeth broke their engagement. Theintroduction, in italics, is presented with its original spelling, but the spelling has been modernized in the poem itselffor easier reading. The many commas in the middle of the lines have been left to mark the caesura, or pause, that was a popular feature in Elizabethan poetry. The paraphrase that follows shouldclarify any archaic words.

“Farewell with a Mischief”

Farewell with a mischeife, written by a lover being disdaynefullye abjected by a dame ofhighe calling, Who had chosen (in his place) a playe fellow of baser condition: & therfore he determined to step aside, and before his departure giveth hir this farwell in verse.

Thy birth, thy beauty, nor thy brave attire, (Disdainful Dame, which doest me double wrong) Thy high estate, which sets thy heart on fire, Or new-found choice, which cannot serve thee long, Shall make me dread, with pen for to rehearse, Thy skittish deeds, in this my parting verse.

148

For why thou knowest, and I myself can tell, By many vows, how thou to me wert bound: And how for joy, thy heart did seem to swell, And in delight, how thy desires were drowned. When of thy will, the walls I did assail, Wherein fond fancy, fought for mine avail.

And though my mind, have small delight to vaunt, Yet must I vow, my heart to thee was true: My hand was always able for to dauntThy slanderous foes, and keep their tongues in mew. My head (though dull) was yet of such device, As might have kept thy name always in price.

And for the rest, my body was not brave, But able yet, of substance to allayThe raging lust, wherein thy limbs did rave, And quench the coals, which kindled thee to play. Such one I was, and such always will be, For worthy Dames, but then I mean not thee.For thou hast caught a proper paragon, A thief, a coward, and a Peacock fool: An Ass, a milksop, and a minion,Which hath no oil, thy furious flames to cool, Such one he is, a peer for thee most fit, A wandring jest, to please thy wavering wit.

A thief I count him, for he robs us both,Thee of thy name, and me of my delight: A coward is he noted, where he goeth,Since every child is match to him in might. And for his pride no more, but mark his plumes, The which to prink, he days and nights consumes.

The rest thy self, in secret sort can judge,He rides not me; thou knowest his saddle best: And though these tricks of thine, might make me grudge, And kindle wrath, in my revenging breastYet [for] myself, and not to please thy mind,I stand content, my rage in rule to bind.

149

And far from thee, now must I take my flight, Where tongues may tell, (and I not see) thy fall: Where I may drink these drugs of thy despite, To purge my Melancholic mind withall. n secret so, my stomach will I starve, Wishing thee better than thou dost deserve.

Spræta tamen vivunt. (the disdained will survive)The doale of disdaine written by a lover disdainfully rejected contrary to former promise.

Paraphrase of “Farewell with Mischief” Disdainful Dame, who has done me double wrong, you should know that neither your high birth, your beauty, nor your showy attire,nor your high social status that sets your heart on fire, nor your new-found choice of a lover, who will soon begin to bore you– none of this shall make me fear using my pen to recount your skittish behavior in this, my parting verse.

You know why I say this, and I myself can tell how many vows you swore that bound you to me. You know how your heart seemed to swell with joy, and your desires were drowned in delight. Becauseyou wished it, I scaled the walls where my foolish, affectionate imagination fought for the privilege of availing myself of your presence. And though my mind has little cause to brag, my heart was always true to you, and my hands were always ready to challenge your slanderous enemies and keep their tongues cooped up like hawks in a cage. My head, though dull, was so devised that it would always keep your good name highly valued.

And for the rest of my body, it was not as sturdy and strong as Iwould like, but still able to substantially allay the raging lustwhich raved in your limbs, and quench the coals that kindled the fires of amorous play. Such a one I was, and always will be, for worthy women – but I don’t mean you. For you have caught a real model of manhood – a thief, a coward, and a Peacockstrutting fool, an ass, a milksop, and a lowly servant, who has no oil to cool your fiery flames. Such a one he is, a companion most suitable for you, a walking joke, to please your faltering mentalstate.

150

I consider him a thief, for he robs us both – you of your reputation, and me of my delight. Wherever he goes, he is perceived as a coward, because any child would be a match for himin might. And he is proud as a bird of his plumage, but notice his plumes, for he spends many days and nights prinking his feathers.

You can judge for yourself privately what kind of man he is. He does not control me; you know the feeling of his saddle on your back better than I do. And though your tricks may make me grudge and kindle the desire for revenge in my breast, I will stay calm,and bind my rage within the rules of law and chivalry – of my ownfree will, not just to please you.

But now I must go far away from you, where rumor-mongers may tellof your downfall, but where I won’t have to see it. Your despite will be like a drug to me, which I will drink to cure my melancholy. In secret thus I will starve my stomach, wishing you better fortune than you deserve.

Commentary on “Farewell with a Mischief”:Oxford’s pain, sadness, and anger permeate this poem. His contempt for his rival shows a rapier-like command of insulting words, including the ironic designation “a proper paragon” when he means just the opposite. His clever twist in the last line, “wishing you better than you doth deserve” seems to say, “Although you behaved badly, I know how to conduct myself with chivalry and self-discipline.” His pride has been wounded by her infidelity and broken promises, but he will not lower himself to retaliate in kind.

Sonnet 87 deals with a similar situation – a farewell by a poet-narrator to a woman who has betrayed him – yet the tone is more restrained, as if the poet has matured and found ways to ameliorate his sorrow. Also, the poet seems more confident in exploring variations in sentence structure, more nuanced in word choice, and more introspective about the part he himself played in the complex sexual relationship.

Sonnet 87

151

Farewell! thou art too dear for my possessing, And like enough thou know'st thy estimate,The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing; My bonds in thee are all determinate.For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?And for that riches, where is my deserving?The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,And so my patent back again is swerving.Thy self thou gavest, thy own worth then not knowing, Or me to whom thou gav'st it else mistaking; So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,Comes home again, on better judgment making. Thus have I had thee, as a dream doth flatter,In sleep a King, but waking no such matter.

Paraphrase of Sonnet 87:Farewell! You are too dear (expensive) for me to possess. And it is quite likely you know your own worth. You have the legal authority to release yourself from any obligations, whereas my bonds to you are determined by your wishes. For how can I hold your affections unless you grant them to me? And why should I think I am deserving of such riches? I lack the ability to make you love me (cause it to happen), and so the fair gift, which I thought was mine to keep, swerves back to you. You gave yourself to me when you were young, before you knew your own value. Or perhaps you misjudged my worth when you gave that gift to me. So your great gift, because of your increasing doubts and suspicions, comes back to you as you reconsider your former opinion of me and change your mind. Thus have I had you, as if ina dream. In sleep I was a King, but upon waking, it was a different matter.

Commentary on Sonnet 87:This sonnet fits perfectly with the disappointment Oxford experienced when Elizabeth rejected him and broke their engagement vows. She, as Queen, was an absolute monarch who couldmake her own rules. But the bonds that tied him to her were merely vows that he took more seriously than she did. Yet he finds some consolation in remembering that she once gave herself

152

to him, and that he once had her (i.e. possessed her) as in a happy dream. The tone is restrained; the poet never says directly“you gave me a gift and then took it away from me,” nor does he blame her because he has not been able to retain her love and loyalty. He muses that he must be unworthy of such a precious jewel as she is, but he treasures the memory of their love.

* * *

Sonnet 87 has been included in many anthologies as an example of Shakespeare’s poetic skill. Yet it is subject to such varying interpretations that it deserves thoughtful analysis. Most Stratfordians and many Oxfordians believe the poet was addressinga young man. Some in both theoretical camps think the “farewell” was written to end a homosexual relationship. A few think the poet was a father writing to his son, as in Sonnet 36 (“Let me confess that we two must be twain”). An even smaller number thinkthat the poem was written by Oxford to Elizabeth when she broke off their engagement. My person opinion is that the last interpretation best explains how all the parts contribute to the whole, but that is only one possible interpretation among many.

All the interpretations, different as they may be, make valuable contributions to our appreciation of Shakespeare’s genius. Helen Vendler, in The Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets, points out that only two of the sonnets – this one and the master/mistress poem (Sonnet 20) – use predominantly feminine rhymes (two-syllable rhyme wordswith the accent on the first syllable, such as knowing and growing). She also notes the variations on the word “gift/give” that stress the idea of a precious gift retracted.

Katherine Duncan-Jones in The Arden Shakespeare mentions that the word “King” is capitalized in the 1609 sonnet publication, thoughmost modern editions remove the capital K. Both Duncan-Jones and Vendler call attention to the echo of “king” in such words as “waking, making, mistaking.”

Stephen Booth of UC Berkeley, who impressively explains archaic terms and phrases, sees sexual overtones in several words and expressions. In the first line, Booth says, possessing implies

153

sexual possession and submission. In line 5, the words hold thee suggest an embrace as well as a tie or bond, and granting implies permission as well as a gift and deed of possession. The word wanting has a double meaning (in this case “lacking,” but with connotations of “desiring”). The fair gift means that the gift is valuable, but also that the beloved is beautiful and that she is the gift. In line 13, had thee means “possessed you sexually,” although the ending couplet leaves open the possibility that the possession could have been either a dream or a reality that was like a dream. The word matter has sexual connotations, as in “country matters.” but it also contrasts a reality (such as physical matter) with less substantial things, and it distinguishes something important (something that matters) with something inconsequential.

These analytical details seem to indicate the femininity of the addressee and the complexity of a relationship having both legal and emotional bonds. The beloved has greater social status than the poet-narrator, as a queen has over her subjects. When the poet sleeps with her, he becomes a King. She has a charter as an absolute monarch, however, so he must be loyal to her as one of her subjects, even if she has been disloyal or faithless to him as his lover.

If we accept the premise that “William Shakespeare” was the pen name of Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, it follows that the sonnets reveal much more of the author’s true personality than previously supposed. Although this book does not discuss all154 sonnets, even the omitted ones can be interpreted from the point of view expressed here. A good reader will form his or her own opinions but also be open to other readers’ ideas and insights.

It is an impressive tribute to Shakespeare that we still care, 400-plus years after his death, about the playwright-poet who dramatically changed the world of English literature and contributed thousands of words to the English language. Edward DeVere wondered whether his fate would be that “my name be buried where my body is.”

154

We would like to respond, “On the contrary, Lord Oxford, your body was buried long ago, but your name is being kept alive by those of us who continue to uncover your fascinating life story and re-interpret your ever-living literature.” From that body of work, with its intensely personal universality, we derive meaningfor our own lives, insight into the complexities of human behavior, and wisdom for our own times, which are amazingly parallel to yours.

We, too, have our perennial power struggles, wars, conspiracies, corruption, cruelties, and foolishness. Yet we also have better ways to detect crimes, more awareness of other sentient beings inthe natural world, more voices to speak out against injustice, and better means of communication to resist the suppression of truth. We still have the creative forces that can be translated into noble work, as you have taught us so well. We now understandbetter the ideals of loyalty and service that kept you silent forso long. And we continue to be inspired by that overriding truth that your own life story so well exemplifies – the healing and ennobling power of love.

* * *APPENDIX AMore about Cryptology, Ciphers, Codes, and Secret Societies The Influence of Rosicrucian and Freemason Brotherhoods© July, 2010

The purpose of this book is simply to tell a beautiful love storyfor open-minded readers, not to engage in scholarly debates or toargue for or against a particular theory. In the first printing, I kept the information about ciphers minimal to avoid any distraction from the main story. However, several of my Oxfordianfriends have come to distrust ciphers because they are too closely associated with Francis Bacon and the Baconian theory of authorship. They asked for more information about the secret codes being used in Shakespeare’s time. Accordingly, I researchedthe subject of cryptography and found even more evidence to support my conclusions. I learned that Edward De Vere was a Rosicrucian and a Freemason, knowledgeable about their secret

155

codes and symbols. He left clues in the Dedication that Rosicrucian or Freemason members would recognize.

Baconian scholars have relied upon name-ciphers as evidence that Francis Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare. Bacon was known to have developed a bi-lateral cipher system of his own, and to haveset a standard for steganography (embedding a message or clues ina plaintext that seems sensible on its surface). He was also a known Rosicrucian. But even if his name can be found encrypted inmany of Shakespeare’s works, that does not prove he wrote them. Knowing Bacon’s life story does not illuminate the sonnets for us. That is exactly the same problem we have with William Shakspere of Stratford – his life story does not mesh with the contents of the plays and poems. An American millionaire, George Fabian, once hired the famous cryptologists William and

Elizebeth Friedman to establish the validity of Bacon’s claim to authorship. The cryptologists disappointed him, however, by concluding that after diligent study, their decryption methods had actually disqualified Bacon. Though some think the Friedmans had disqualified all of the evidence dealing with ciphered names,they acknowledged that many writers in Shakespeare’s time did encrypt their names in their works. The Friedmans actually remained open to other possibilities, but they established standards that must be met for any cipher system to be construed as proof for other claimants. Primarily, they said such a system would have to yield results greater than those obtainable throughmere chance or coincidence; the encryption would have to convey some meaningful message; and it would have to follow a pattern, not just use letters picked at random [Leary, “Friedman”].

Despite this setback for Baconian scholars, they deserve credit for some important contributions. It was they who first suggestedthat the presumed initials “T.T.” below the Dedication riddle might symbolize the pillars of Hercules [Leary, “Ciphers”]. Baconhad used the Hercules pillars symbolically in the frontispiece ofhis scientific work, The Novum Organum, signifying the search intothe unknown waters of scientific inquiry [Hall, Secret Teachings,551]. From that starting point, I researched Rosicrucian

156

societies and the highly similar brotherhood of Freemasons. My findings have been explained in an article published in the online magazine Rose Croix Journal (Spring 2007). The web site for this journal is www.rosecroixjournal.org . Briefly summarized, here are those findings:

1. Secret codes and ciphers were used by Queen Elizabeth’s spy system to communicate dangers such as plans to invade England or to overthrow her government. Secret societies known as Freemasonsand Rosicrucians, using secret codes for communicating among themselves, existed in 16th Century England and Scotland, although only a few written records have survived dated earlier than the 18th century [Dodd, Haynes, Hall, Johnstone].

2. Both Freemasons and Rosicrucians used symbols, rituals, and allegories to initiate members. According to Alfred Dodd, FrancisBacon revived some rituals of the Knights Templar and devised a system of 33 degrees to measure progress for the initiates of Freemasons and Rosicrucians [Dodd, Francis Bacon]. Their goals were laudable ones – to take pride in one’s craftsmanship, to build character, and to promote brotherly love and good works – but outsiders sometimes suspected that their search for knowledge involved black magic or Satanic worship [See Wooley’s biography of John Dee].

3. From internal evidence and precedents, we may assume that the author William Shakespeare wrote his own dedication to the sonnets as he had done with his narrative poems “Venus and Adonis” (1593) and “Rape of Lucrece” (1594). We assume that the dedicatee was the same person: Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton, whose initials were anagrammed as “Mr. W.H.” to prevent his being too easily identified [Ogburn, Jr.]. We are also presuming that “William Shakespeare” was a pen name used by Edward De Vere, the 17thEarl of Oxford. We assume that the dedication is a riddle with which the author intended to bypass the censors and spies of his own time, in the hope that it would be solved by a future generation [Gordon, Secret Love].

4. Edward De Vere was both a Rosicrucian and a Freemason [Charlton, D.] (probably at the

157

28thdegree, which is associated with knighthood and “Tree of the Sun”) [Wright, D.]. De Vere performed in jousting tournaments, asseveral preceding earls of Oxford had done, to revive the King Arthur legends and inspire loyalty to Queen and country. Freemason symbols appear in the Dedication to the Sonnets (e.g. three inverted triangles, pair of gammas suggesting pillars of Temple of Solomon.

Dedication to “Shakespeare’s Sonnets” published in 1609 by Thomas Thorpe

5. Edward De Vere was a skilled cryptographer, as demonstrated ina poem he wrote that embedded his own name both downward and upward (in a V shape). This poem, “The Absent Lover,” (also called “The Shield of Love”) along with its solution, are presented in B.M. Ward’s biography Edward De Vere, The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, [Ward, 1928] and reprinted by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn in their biography of Oxford, This Star of England [1952]. (See also Appendix B of this book.)

6. De Vere used a similar method of encryption, in the Dedicationto the Sonnets, to encipher the names of Henry Wriothesley, E. Regina, E. De Vere, and all three of their mottos, as well as thewords “Twelfth Night.” [Gordon, Secret Love] The Twelfth Night holiday in 1573 was the probable date of conception for the love-child, Henry Wriothesley (born October 6, 1573), who was born to Elizabeth Tudor, fathered by Edward De Vere. I am indebted to John Rollett, who found several ciphers in the Dedication using an equidistant-letter sequence method [Rollett], and Robert Prechter, who located the name “Elisabeth” in the Dedication and presented samples of the Queen’s signature spelled with an “S” instead of a “Z”. [Prechter] This name follows a pattern of encryption similar to that in “The Absent Lover.”

7. The supposed “initials” of “T.T.” below the Dedication are actually Greek gamma letters, which when paired, symbolize the pillars of Solomon’s temple. [Gordon, “Rosicrucian”] For

158

Freemasons, the pillars of Solomon indicate the search for enlightenment, an entrance into the inner sanctum of Solomon’s wisdom. The sacred letter “G” in the center of the Masonic logo of the compass above a mason’s square stands for “God” and “Geometry,” which Freemasons believe was the science used by the Grand Architect to build the Universe. Although the sacred Greek letter gamma was later changed to a Roman “G” in the center of the Masonic logo of the compass and the square, the original Greek gamma was a more suitable symbol, according to Freemason author John Cockburn, because it resembled the carpenter’s or mason’s square [┌ ]. The digamma, [┌┌] consisting of two gammas side by side, stood for pillars symbolizing supports or entrances(for example, pillars of Hercules or entrance to Solomon’s temple).

8. The fact that Shakespeare contrived such an ungrammatical sentence structure indicates that he was fitting the words into some restraining pattern or grid. The unusual spelling of words like “onlie” and “insuing” suggest that these letters are part ofan embedded message. The exact word count of 28 words would explain the length restraint, possibly indicating the Masonic 28th degree which is known as the “Knight of the Tree of the Sun.” Edward De Vere acted in this “knight” role during a jousting tournament for the Queen in 1581 [Wright].

9. Other clues in the Dedication that might have alerted a “brother” to the secret message were (a) the use of dots after each word (the Rosicrucian Code used similar dots in a grid), (b)the use of all capital letters, suggesting an engraved headstone,(c) the peculiar shape of the Dedication (three inverted triangles, which can also suggest the “V” in “Vere” and the “VV” or “W” in “Wriothesley), (d) the arrangement of lines in the three triangles of the Dedication, corresponding to the number ofletters in the name “Edward De Vere” (6-2-4) [noted by Rollett], suggest a familiarity with numerology [Gordon, “Rosicrucian”].

10. Although Shakespeare/Oxford used an unusual system of steganography, he was capable enough and clever enough to invent his own system with a not-easily-detectable pattern. Doing so would increase his chances that spies and censors of his own time

159

would not suspect that the Dedication contained an encoded message, revealing the secret of Elizabeth’s and Edward’s love child. [Gordon, Secret Love]

Appendix BEdward De Vere as Cryptographer in the poem “The Absent Lover” or“Shield of Love”

The Earl of Oxford’s biographer B. M. Ward included in his book apoem “The Absent Lover,” by Edward De Vere, that Ward had seen inthe first publication of Hundreth Sunday Flowres. It was reprinted inDorothy and Charlton Ogburn’s biography This Star of England This Star of England 1258. Also known as “The Shield of Love,” it shows that Edward De Vere was a skilled cryptographer.

A likely scenario is that Edward De Vere wrote this poem to QueenElizabeth. Dorothy Ogburn believes that De Vere loved Elizabeth all his life, though they were never free to marry [Ogburn, This Star]. Reasonable interpretations [Gordon, Secret Love] would imply that De Vere addressed many sonnets to Elizabeth, although they were published under the pseudonym of “William Shakespeare” in 1609. Not all of them were to a “dark lady” as we can infer from the line in Sonnet 131: “In nothing art thou black save in thy deeds.” Probably the poem entitled “The Absent Lover” was addressed to Queen Elizabeth (deare dame), challenging her to decipher his name. Here is the plaintext of the poem as it appeared in B. M. Ward’s biography: The Absent Lover

The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth

L’Escu d’amour , the shield of perfect love, The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith, The force of faith which never willremove, But standeth fast, to byde the broonts of death: That trustie targe, hath long borne of the blowes, And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throws.

In dolefull days I lead an absent life,And wound my will with many a weary thought: I plead for peace, yet sterve in stormes of strife,

160

I find debate, where quiet rest was sought. These panges with mo, unto my paine I prove, Yet beare I all uppon my shield of love.In colder cares are my conceipts consumd, Than Dido felt when false Enaeas fled; In farr more heat, than trusty Troylus fumd, When craftie Cressyde dwelt with Diomed. My hope such frost, my hot desire such flame, That I both fryse, and smoulder in the same.So that I live, and dye in one degree,Healed by hope, and hurt againe with dread; Fast bound by faith when fansie would be free, Vntied by trust, through thoughts enthrall my head. Reviv’d by joyes, when hope doth most abound, And yet with grief, in depth of dollors drownd.In these assaultes I feele my feebled force Begins to faint, thus weried still in woes:And scarcely can my thus consumed corse, Hold up this Buckler to beare of these blowes. So that I crave, or presence for relief,Or some supplie, to ease mine absent grief.

L’envuoieTo you (deare Dame) this dolefull plaint I make Whose onely sight may some redresse my smart: Then shew your selfe, and for your servauntes sake, Make hast post hast, to helpe a faythfull harte. Mine owne poore shield hath me defended long, Now lend me yours, for elles you do me wrong. - Meritum peter, grave

Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn explain the publication history of this poem [ This Star of England, p.1257-58]. It was first included inthe collection A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, published in 1573. It was signed “Meritum petere, grave,” which is known to be one of Oxford’s posies (personal mottos). Assuming that De Vere was addressing Queen Elizabeth, she would have taken great pleasure in the word-play and in De Vere's flattering application of the courtly love

161

tradition, in which an inaccessible woman is being worshiped fromafar.

The collection was reissued in 1576 in a substantially altered edition entitled The Poesies of George Gascoigne. Dorothy Ogburn speculates that Queen Elizabeth had permitted Gascoigne to plagiarize De Vere's poetry (taken from Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, 1573) in order to deflect attention if any readers suspected thatDe Vere’s poems were being addressed to her.

The poet challenged the recipient (deare Dame) to discover his name, which can be deciphered as follows: [In this pattern, only the initial letter of each significant word is used in the cipher, affirming that the word was deliberately placed somewherein the line as needed to form the poet’s name.]

Read this column downwardE(scu)d’(amour)w(hich)a(nd)r(est)d(ebate)D(idoe(nthrall)V(ntied) e(ase) r(edress)

Read this column upward

E (scu) r(est)E(naeas)

V(ntied)e(nthralled)d(olors)d(rownd)r(elief)a(bsent)W(hose)

162

d(efended)e(lles) e(lles) Adapted from Edward De Vere's biographer B. M. Ward, cited by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, This Star of England, pages 1257-1258.

Dorothy Ogburn notes that a misspelling of Enaeas destroyed the cipher when A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres was re-published in 1576 as the Poesies of George Gascoigne. Moreover, that edition omitted the introductory challenge to the reader to find the poet's name enciphered.

Certain spelling conventions of the Elizabethan age must be considered in solving this puzzle. Most important is that Elizabethan English had fewer letters (only 23, compared to our present 26). The U and the V were interchangeable, so the cryptographer could use the V as a U in untied, yet employ it as aV in the name Vere.

The Embedded Patterns

The plaintext of the poem appears meaningful on its face, which is one mark of an excellent encryption, according to the criteriapublished by Francis Bacon in his discourse on cryptography. Following an unusual 6-line stanza pattern, the rhyme scheme of ababcc is consistently maintained throughout six verses. The poetuses true rhymes, which sometimes necessitate an inverted sentence structure to fulfill the rhyme scheme, as in “And broke the thrusts, which absence at me throws.” So conventional and elegant is the poetry, that without the clue in the introduction,we might never look for a secret message. Since the poet's name has 12 letters, giving himself 36 lines in the poem enables him to spread out the letters of his name, and thus to meet two more challenges within the poetical framework – that is, embedding hisname twice, first reading downward and then reading upward.

Although the poet says his encryption is in “ciphers,” a more precise term would be steganography, because the plaintext conceals the encrypted message unobtrusively. Ciphers often substituted numbers for names, as can be seen in letters by QueenElizabeth's spies (Haynes, 23). Or ciphers might require a key

163

possessed by both sender and receiver, such as a certain pattern of equidistant letter sequencing. In such cases, the awkwardness of the plaintext might suggest to decipherers that there is a hidden subtext. Codes, in contrast, may consist of all numbers orall letters in nonsense arrangements, making them obvious as secret messages and thus vulnerable to known code-breaking methods.

Edward De Vere was familiar with code-breaking strategies such asequidistant letter sequencing, but many of his enemies also knew them and could easily decode messages by placing them in grids. Thus he avoided such obviously numerical patterns in this poem, but he did follow a strict pattern of encryption. Having providedthe clue in the headnote that the hidden text was his name, he began with the first line, which contained a French word beginning with E (Escu) and another beginning with D (d'amour). The metaphor of a “shield of love” is particularly apt, since a shield provides protection, and he was protecting the name of therecipient (deare Dame), by hiding his own where no one but she (or someone else who was privy to the secret) could discover it.

The Cryptographic Pattern

Although at first the hidden-text letters may seem random, the key letters are always the initial letter of a word in a given line. They also appear in a fixed order moving top to bottom and then bottom to top. In lines containing more than one key letter,the order may proceed either from left to right or from right to left. In Line 10, for example the RD of Edward appears in the words debate and rest. In Line 22, we find the V first, in Vnited, and the E later, in enthrall.

This way of embedding may have been an invention of Edward De Vere, since it does not follow the usual acrostic pattern of beginning each line with a significant letter. The analysis, however, is quite instructive, because it establishes a pattern that we can see in the Dedication to the Sonnets by “William Shake-speare.” Thus it enables us to approach that riddle in a similar frame of mind, assuming that De Vere was using the pen name of “William Shakespeare,” and wanting to send his message to

164

future generations. De Vere had to be clever enough to get past the censors and enemies who wanted the name of Edward De Vere to be buried forever or stained with a dung-heap of calumny.

For analysis of the similarly embedded messages in the Dedicationto the Sonnets, see Chapter Two, “Anagrams and Ciphers in the Dedication.”* * * Works Consulted about Cryptology, Ciphers, and Secret Societies

Ancient Mystical Order of the Rosy Cross. “Rosicrucian History and Legends.” http://www.rosicrucian.org/about/mastery/mastery08history.htmlAnderson, Verily. The De Veres of Castle Hedingham. Lavenham Suffolk: Terrence Dalton, 1993.Anonymous pamphlet. 28th Degree Grand Knight of the Sun or Prince-Adept. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publication Co. Bacon, Francis. “Proficience and Advancement of Learning Divine and Humane.” 1640 translation from Latin.Beresniak, Daniel. Symbols of Freemasonry. Trans. from French by Ian Monk. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2000.Brydon, Robert. Rosslyn – a History of the Guilds, the Masons, and the Rosy Cross. Midlothian: Rosslyn Chapel Trust, 1994. Bull, Peter. “Antony and Cleopatra – Masonic symbolism in one of Shakespeare’s Plays.” http://www.masoncode.com .Bull, Peter. Shakespeare’s Sonnets Written by Kit Marlowe. http://www.masoncode.comBurns, Cathy. Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated. Mt. Carmel, PA, USA, Sharing, 2006. Charlton, Derran K. “Edward De Vere and the Knights of the Grail.” The Spear Shaker Review, May 1991, pp.4-10.Churchill, R. C. Shakespeare and His Betters: A History and a Criticism of the Attempts Which Have Been Made to Prove That Shakespeare's Works Were Written by Others. London: Max Reinhardt, 1938. Available online though Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.comCockburn, John A. “The Letter G,” Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, 1897. Reprinted by the Grand Lodge of British Colombia and Yukon, Dec. 19, 2002, on web sitehttp://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/letter_q.html

165

Cooper, Robert L.D. Cracking the Freemasons Code. New York: Atria Books, 2007.Dawkins, Peter. “Shakespeare and Freemasonry.” Freemasonry Today,Winter, 1998. Reprinted online at www.sirbacon.org/Dawkinsfrmsnry.htm .Dodd, Alfred. Francis Bacon’s Personal Life Story. London: Rider & Co., 1938.___________. Shakespeare: Creator of Freemasonry. London, Rider & Co., 1933Duncan, Malcolm A. Duncan’s Ritual of Freemasonry. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2007Freke, Timothy and Peter Gandy. The Hermetica: The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1999.Gardner, Martin. Codes, Ciphers and Secret Writing. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1972. Gordon, Helen Heightsman. The Secret Love Story in Shakespeare’s Sonnets, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2008.__________. “Shakespeare’s Rosicrucian Revelations in the Dedication to the Sonnets.” Rose Croix Journal, Spring 2007, p. 1-20. Printed online at www.rosecroixjournal.org .Greer, John Michael. The Element Encyclopedia of Secret Societies. New York:Barnes and Noble, Inc., 2006.Guffey, Robert. “Was Shakespeare a Freemason? Masonic Symbolism in Macbeth.” Reprinted by Rosslyn Templars, www.RosslynTemplars.org.uk , Nov. 2006.Haynes, Alan. The Elizabethan Secret Services. Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing Company, 2000. Heisler, Ron. “The Impact of Freemasonry on Elizabethan Literature.” The Hermetic Journal, 1990. Reprinted with permission atwww.levity.com .Leary, Thomas ‘Penn.’ “Friedman,” in The Second Cryptographic Shakespeare. Reprinted by Online Books Library. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu“Masonic Events in History.” California Freemason On-Line Magazine, Spring 2004. Available online at www.freemason.org/cfo/spring_2004 . Marrs, Jim. Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Freemasons, the Trilateral Commission, and the Great Pyramids. New York: Harper Collins, 2000.Nozedar, Adele. The Element Encyclopedia of Secret Signs and Symbols. New

166

York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 2008.Ogburn, Charlton, Jr. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1984.Prechter, Robert R. “The Sonnets Dedication Puzzle,” Shakespeare Matters: The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship. Vol. 4, No. 3, Spring 2005, pp. 1-2.Rollett, John. “Interpretations of the Dedication to Shakespeare’s Sonnets.” The Oxfordian, Vol. 2, October 1999, pp.60-75. Sears, Elisabeth. Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose. Marshfield, MA: Meadowgeese Press, 2003.Waite. Arthur E. Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing Co.Ward, B. M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1928. Reprinted by Shakespeare-Oxford Society, 2003. Wooley, Benjamin. The Queen’s Conjurer: The Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001. Wright, Daniel L. “Shaking the Spear at Court.” Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, summer, 1998. Wrixon, Fred B. Codes, Ciphers, and Other Cryptic and Clandestine Communication. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1998.Yates, Frances. The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. London: Routledge Classics, 2nd ed. 2004. Zain, C.C. “The Royal Arch Passwords.” Ancient Masonry – The Spiritual Meaning of Masonic Degrees, Rituals and Symbols. Los Angeles: The Church of Light, 1994. Pages 186-188 reprinted online at www.masoncode.com .

Bibliography for Whole BookWorks Consulted and Recommended for Further Reading Gordon, H.H. The Secret Love Story in Shakespeare’s Sonnets

Ancient Mystical Order of the Rosy Cross. “Rosicrucian History and Legends.” http://www.rosicrucian.org/about/mastery/mastery08history.htmlAnderson, Verily. The De Veres of Castle Hedingham. Lavenham Suffolk: Terrence Dalton, 1993.Bacon, Francis. “Proficience and Advancement of Learning Divine and Humane.” 1640 translation from Latin.

167

Beresniak, Daniel. Symbols of Freemasonry. Trans. from French by Ian Monk. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2000.Bowen, Catherine D. Francis Bacon: The Temper of a Man. Boston: Little,Brown, 1963.Brydon, Robert. Rosslyn – a History of the Guilds, the Masons, and the Rosy Cross. Midlothian: Rosslyn Chapel Trust, 1994. Bull, Peter. Shakespeare’s Sonnets Written by Kit Marlowe. http://www.masoncode.comBurns, Cathy. Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated. Mt. Carmel, PA, USA, Sharing, 2006. Charlton, Derran K. “Edward de Vere and the Knights of the Grail.” The Spear Shaker Review, May 1991, pp. 4-10.Churchill, R. C. Shakespeare and His Betters: A History and a Criticism of the Attempts Which Have Been Made to Prove That Shakespeare's Works Were Written by Others. London: Max Reinhardt, 1938. Available online though Questia Media America,Inc. www.questia.comCockburn, John A. “The Letter G.” Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, the Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, Vol 10, p. 40, 1897.Reprinted by the Grand Lodge of British Colombia and Yukon, Dec. 19, 2002, on web sitehttp://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/letter_q.htmlCooper, Robert L.D. Cracking the Freemasons Code. New York: Atria Books, 2007.Dawkins, Peter. “Ciphers of Francis Bacon.” Francis Bacon Research Trust, 1999. http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/essays/frameset-essays.html____________. “The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy.” Francis Bacon Research Trust, 1999. http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/essays/frameset-essays.htm ._____________. “Shakespeare and Freemasonry” Freemasonry Today, Winter 1998. Reprinted on web site http://www.sirbacon.org/Dawkinsfrmsnry.htmDodd, Alfred. Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story. London: Rider & Co., 1938.___________. Shakespeare: Creator of Freemasonry. London: Rider & Co., 1933.Erickson, Carolly. The First Elizabeth. New York: Summit Books, 1983.Fowler, Bob. “Sir Francis Bacon, Shakespeare, William Tudor, and

168

Freemason Symbology.” http://www.light-of-truth.comFriedman, William. The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined. Cambridge: University Press, 1957.Gardner, Martin. Codes, Ciphers and Secret Writing. New York: Dover Publications, 1972.Gordon, Helen Heightsman. The Secret Love Story in Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Second Edition. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2008. ______________________. “William Shakespeare’s Rosicrucian Revelations in the Dedication to the Sonnets” in the international electronic journal Rose Croix Journal, www.rosecroixjournal.org Spring, 2007.Guffey, Robert. “Was Shakespeare a Freemason? Masonic Symbolism in Macbeth.” Reprinted by Rosslyn Templars, www.RosslynTemplars.org.uk Nov. 2006.Hall, Manly P. The Lost Keys of Freemasonry. New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 1976.___________. The Secret Teachings of All Ages. New York: Tarcher/Penguin,2003.Haynes, Alan. The Elizabethan Secret Services. Gloucestershire, England: Sutton Publishing, 2004.Heisler, Ron. “The Forgotten English Roots of Rosicrucianism” The Hermetic Journal, 1992. Reprinted with permission http://www.levity.com/alchemy/h_fre.html__________. “The Impact of Freemasonry on Elizabethan Literature.” The Hermetic Journal, 1990. Reprinted at http://www.levity.com/alchemy/h_fre.html

Hevlin, Clinton. So Long As Men Can Breathe:The Untold Story of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Holmes, Jean. “Alexander and the Lapis Lazuli.” The De Vere Society Newsletter, October

2008, 30-32.Jennings, Hargrave. “Rosicrucianism in Strange Symbols.” Chapter 28, The Rosicrucians. London: Chatto and Windus, 1879.Johnstone, Michael. The Freemasons: The Illustrated Book of An Ancient Brotherhood. New York: Grammercy Books, 2005.Kahn, David. The Codebreakers. Macmillan, 1967.

169

Leary, Thomas ‘Penn’. “Are There Ciphers in Shakespeare?” Reprinted by Online BooksLibrary. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu .__________. “Friedman,” in The Second Cryptographic Shakespeare. Reprinted byOnline Books Library. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.eduLevin, Carole. “The Courtships of Elizabeth R,” Renaissance Magazine, Vol. 4, #2, Issue 14, 1999. Looney, Thomas. “Shakespeare” Identified as the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. London, 1920. Reprinted online by Shakespeare-Oxford Society, www.shakespeare-oxford.com Marrs, Jim. Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Freemasons, the Trilateral Commission, and the Great Pyramids. New York: Harper Collins, 2000. Nozedar, Adele. The Element Encyclopedia of Secret Signs and Symbols. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 2008.Ogburn, Charlton, Jr. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1984. Ogburn, Dorothy and Charlton. This Star of England. New York: Coward-McCann, Inc. 1952. Prechter, Robert R. “The Sonnets Dedication Puzzle,” Shakespeare Matters: The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship. Vol. 4, No. 3, Spring 2005, pp. 1-2.Rollet, John. “Interpretations of the Dedication to Shakespeare’sSonnets.” The Oxfordian, Vol. 2, October 1999, pp. 60-75. Reprinted with further commentary in Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Works of Edward De Vere, pp. 253-266. Tunbridge Wells: Parapress Ltd., 2005. Roper, David L. The Shakespeare Story. http://www.dlroper.shakespearians.com Sears, Elisabeth. Shakespeareand the Tudor Rose. Marshfield Hills, Mass: Meadow Geese Press, 2003.Seiden, Ellen. “Was the Virgin Queen Really a Virgin?” Renaissance Magazine, Vol. 4, #2, Issue 14, 1999. Reprint at www.geocities.com/queenswoman/elizaseiden.html Smith, Laurence

170

Dwight. Cryptography: the Science of Secret Writing. New York: DoverPublications, 1971. Sobran, Joseph. “ ‘Shakespeare’ Revealed in Oxford’s Poetry,” De Vere Society Newsletter,January 1996. Available online at www.shakespeare-oxford.comWaite, Arthur. Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross. Kessinger Publishing RareReprints, www.kessinger.net 2007 edition.__________. The New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. New York: Wings Books,1970. Walker, Mather. “The Troilus and Cressida Puzzle and the Design of the First Folio.”Part I. http://www.sirbacon.orgWard, B. M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1928. Reprinted by Shakespeare-Oxford Society, 2003. Weir, Tass. Knights Templar web site. www.veling.nl/anne/templarsWilliams, Neville. The Life and Times of Elizabeth I. London: Abbeville Press, 1992. Woolley, Benjamin. The Queen’s Conjurer: The science and magic of Dr. John Dee. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001. Wright, Daniel L. “Shaking the Spear at Court.” Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, Summer, 1998.Wrixon, Fred B. Codes, Ciphers, and Other Cryptic and Clandestine Communication. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1998.Yates, Frances. The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. London: Routledge Classics, 2nd ed. 2004. Zain, C.C. “The Royal Arch Passwords.” Ancient Masonry – The Spiritual Meaning of MasonicDegrees, Rituals and Symbols. Los Angeles: The Church of Light, 1994. Pages 186-188 reprinted online at www.masoncode.com

171