The True Authorship of Shakespeare's Sonnets
by Kenneth Farnol - 2026
shakespearesonnets.co.uk
This website begins with some preliminary notes, introduces an associated book and freely reveals the comprehensive findings of this thoroughly-researched and entirely independent investigation.
There is little to do with the incomparable Shakespeare plays and everything to do with the Sonnets. These intriguing conclusions entirely depend on the words of the Sonnets themselves.
Kenneth Farnol - Abergavenny - 2026
PRELIMINARY NOTES
It is suggested that "Shakespeare's" 1609 Sonnets are plainly ambiguous and that sole authorship of all 154 Sonnets is unlikely. In the interests of truth and reason: open-minded readers are invited to stand back from some very unlikely myths and legends surrounding the Sonnets and seriously reconsider the very nature of the Sonnets in question. What could be more reasonable?
Contrary to prevailing beliefs, it has been found that the more you read Shakespeare's Sonnets at simple face-value, the less likely you are to believe some of the more outdated folklore. Good examples include private upper-class family Sonnet Nos. 1-17 or the unlikely prospect of them being 'commissioned' to a 'commoner' playwright, which initiated this project in the first place.
William Shakespeare certainly wrote some of the Sonnets which were printed in his name in 1609. However, many Sonnets are intimate, aristocratic and feminine and were plainly never intended for illicit publication in 1609. Contrary to some very doubtful traditional interpretations this well-researched project simply relies on the actual words of the Sonnets in question. Just read them.
Against a background of controversial authorship issues: it is proposed that true understanding of the varied authorship of the much-loved "Shakespeare" Sonnets is often undermined by an accumulation of extremely unlikely myths and legends. This study simply relies on the evidence of the Sonnets rather than on any 'theories' or fanciful speculations. What could be more logical?
This independent investigation relies on the premise that William Shakespeare's patron, William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, was part-writer and 'keeper' of all 154 Sonnets which were printed in the name of "Shakespeare" in 1609. Many Sonnets are 'unknown' but some appear to be by his mother Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke and his cousin/lover Mary Sidney Wroth.
It is seriously proposed that any independent re-reading of the "Shakespeare" Sonnets should soon reveal such radical differences in style and content as to strongly indicate seperate authorship to any unbiased readership. Please read them at face-value. The Sonnets should be re-appraised with all due freedom from traditional myths, legends and preconceptions. It really is that simple!
Who has never questioned some of the more bizarre and unlikely pseudo-homosexual 'Fair Youth' stories which still dominate the Shakespeare Sonnets to this day? Then, why has the true role of Shakespeare's patron, William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, as 'keeper' of the Sonnets been so overlooked for so long? Then, who can ignore the Wroth/Worth puns within the Sonnets?
it is reiterated that the diverse authorship of "Shakespeare's" Sonnets is truly revealed by simply comparing Sonnets. They are often private and confidential. Most are so very 'different' from each other as to plainly indicate varying origins. So, why are so many single-minded and single-authorship interpretations still maintained to this day? Perhaps, this demands further investigation?
Regardless of prevailing folklore, it is proposed that some very obvious differences between the style, content and gender of many "Shakespeare" Sonnets soon suggests that they were formed into seperate groups of different authorship when they were so ingenuously published in 1609. See contrasting group Nos. 1-17 and 127-154 at either end of the Sonnet spectrum. Why is this?
How strange that three adjoining Sonnet Nos. 125, 126 and 127 should be so very different...
a) Wer't aught to me that bore the canopy
b) O thou, my lovely boy who in thy power
c) In the old age black was not counted fair
How odd that these three contrasting sonnets are so oddly situated in the diverse 1609 sequence...
a) appears to be part of a small 'political' group Nos. 123 to 125 by an unknown aristocratic writer?
b) (with one-off rhyming scheme aabbccddeeff__) seems to be by a 'motherly/metaphysical' poet?
c) can very readily be seen as the first of 28 genuine 'Sugr'ed' Sonnets by William Shakespeare?
Surely, there is a case to answer for the diverse authorship of the so-called "Shakespeare" Sonnets when so many of them are obviously intimate, aristocratic and female? See Nos. 1-17. Then, why do we continue to believe some ill-founded stories about a supposedly effete and misrepresented 'Fair Youth' when the historical realities of his true role as Shakespeare's patron are so overlooked?
Some of the 1609 Sonnets were indeed by William Shakespeare. See group Nos. 127-154. This project fundamentally differs from the generalised 'Shakespeare' authorship claims and counter-claims with which we are all too familiar. This independent investigation simply relies on the actual words of the Sonnets themselves. What could be more logical, reasonable and straightforward?
This well-intentioned venture also depends on the identification of at least some of the more likely authors of the so-called "Shakespeare" Sonnets. By style and context alone, several Sonnets are contrary to a dubious accumulation of traditional myths, legends and so-called 'theories'. Who is truly aware of the critical role of the important literary Sidney, Herbert, Wroth family, for example?
Who knows about the arranged marriage of Mary Sidney to Sir Robert 'Wroth' in 1604? What of the 'secret' romance between William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and his cousin/lover Mary Sidney 'Wroth' as reflected in the Sonnets? Who is aware of the ill-disguised 'Wroth/Worth' puns in Sonnet Nos. 80 and 83? Who also recognises the bitter and offensive nature of these Sonnets?
Attention is drawn to long-overlooked W, R, O, T, H, word/letter-play in Sonnet Nos. 81, 84, 85 and 90 and an important cluster of ubiquitous 'Wroth/Worth' puns* in William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke's 'middle' Sonnet Nos. 76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 87 and (surprisingly) No. 116.
N.B. 'WROTH' = 'WORTH' together with 'derivatives' such as 'WROTE'. Examples are as follows:
(80)" But since your worth, wide as the ocean is... "
(80) "Or being wrack'd, I am a worthless boat..."
(83)"Speaking of worth what worth in you doth grow..."
(116) "Whose worth's unknown although his height be taken..."
These are excellent examples of "Evidence from the Sonnets" (upon which this project is based). There are a number of seemingly-irresistible WROTH/WORTH puns* both inside and outside the Sonnets. In this case, an estimated 44.5% of pure WORTH references are concentrated within less than 11% of the "Shakespeare" Sonnets. Surely this critical evidence has not gone unnoticed?
Any unbiased reading of the plainly mixed 1609 "Shakespeare" Sonnets must surely cause us to question who actually wrote them? Simply read them at face-value. They are just so 'varied'. Please note that this long-overdue assessment of the clearly seperate Sonnets has very little to do with the incomparable plays which are believed to be essentially from the pen of William Shakespeare.
There are a number of 'other' genuine 'Shakespeare' Sonnets which are to be found within the plays. See 'Romeo and Juliet' and 'Love's Labours Lost', in particular. The very distinctive 'Sugr'ed' Sonnets by William Shakespeare, in person, may simply be found in 1609 Sonnet Nos. 127-154. At no point is there any implied criticism of William Shakespeare or any other associated author.
This strictly independent venture is also aimed at a number of academic and non-academic readers who may wish to identify who the often misrepresented "Fair Youth" actually was and what was his likely role as 'keeper' of the Shakespeare's Sonnets? These findings are intended to be reasonable, readable and historically accurate and have nothing to do with any pro/anti Shakespeare factions.
Any comparison beteween groups of "Shakespeare" Sonnets soon reveals how 'different' they are. By style and content alone: Nos. 1-17 are clearly intimate, maternal and aristocratic. 'Worth' Sonnet Nos. 78-91 are obviously 'Cavalier' by nature. 'Genuine' Shakespeare Sonnet Nos. 127-154 are plainly satirical, masculine and cynical - thus indicating seperate authorship. It really is that simple.
Whilst these findings are essentially 'simple', it is clear that hackneyed (and often distracting) 'Fair Youth' and 'Dark Lady' stories are still widely believed. Arguably, many truths, half-truths and untruths still lie within the popular consciousness. Nevertheless, who can deny that the written evidence of the Sonnets themselves must always be preferable to unproven archaic suppositions?
Arbitary division of Sonnet Nos. 1-126 and 127-154 into much-vaunted 'Fair Youth' and 'Dark Lady' designations are clearly open to question. Thus any realistic present-day comparison between all 154 Sonnets clearly reveal a very mixed and varied authorship to any unbiased reading. However, complete freedom from some very unlikely historical misinterpretations is strongly recommended.
LEGITIMATE DOUBTS - A PRELIMINARY SURVEY
Why would anyone venture to suggest that at least some of the "Shakepeare Sonnets" were by other authors? Surely, these two words are synonomous? By long tradition this is what we have been taught. Yet, it is sincerely proposed that, by reading the more intimate, aristocratic and female Sonnets at simple face-value, we may have several reasons to think again. See Nos. 1-17.
In the light of some very misleading 'Fair Youth' and 'Dark Lady' stories it is hardly surprising that the "Shakespeare" Sonnets remain so enigmatic and ambiguous. Regardless of dubious myths and legends the actual words of many of the Sonnets tell a very different story. Perhaps, the true authorship of a number of the so-called "Shakespeare" Sonnets should now be re-considered?
In order to fully understand the true authorship of the plainly diverse 'Shakespeare' Sonnets it is strongly recommended that some very unlikely (but still prevailing) interpretations are seriously called into question. It is believed that these literary masterpieces deserve to be re-assessed with all due freedom from centuries of very doubtful (and patently outmoded) folklore.
Although Sonnet Nos. 127-154 are attributable to William Shakespeare, in person, why are Sonnets Nos. 1-126 not duly recognised as being entirely separate and very, very 'different'? Regardless of historical misconceptions, who did write the more intimate, aristocratic and female "Shakespeare" Sonnets which were, so mistakenly, published in his name 1609?
Why are the clearly diverse Sonnets still believed to be of sole authorship when there are so many obvious differences in the personal style and content of so many Sonnets? Just read them at simple face-value. Why were the Sonnets divided into recognisable groups and clusters of varying authorship when they were so questionably printed in 1609? See Nos. 1-17 and 127-154.
Why has the true role and sexuality of the fabled "Fair Youth", as William Shakespeare's patron and 'keeper' of the so-called 'Shakespeare' Sonnets been so persistently misrepresented? Then, who can deny that the logical written evidence of the Sonnets themselves must surely be preferable to centuries of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misattributions?
Who can truly discount the important contributions of the literary Sidney, Herbert and Wroth family to the 'Shakespeare' Sonnets? See important 'Wroth/Worth' puns in some of the Sonnets. Perhaps the Sonnets do actually speak for themselves? It really is that simple. Open-minded readers may now wish to re-read the Sonnets and seriously consider the following: -
SOME PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
Some of the 1609 'Shakespeare's' Sonnets (127-154) were indeed written by William Shakespeare in person. However, several Sonnets (1-126), by style and content alone, are much more likely to have been written by other authors. Intimate, aristocratic and maternal Sonnet Nos. 1-17 were, probably written by a recognisable (but consistently overlooked) titled author to her well-known, noble but 'reluctant-to-marry' son in person.
Just because the Plays are substantially 'exclusive', why do we have to assume that the clearly mixed "Shakespeare's" Sonnets were also written by just one person? Why is there such unverified belief in single authorship when the actual words, meaning and character of so many of the 1609 Sonnets plainly suggest multiple origins? Just read them. Then what of the true role of the fabled 'Fair Youth' as Shakespeare's patron?
There are several reasons to question the true authorship of the "Shakespeare" Sonnets. They should be read at simple face-value and with all due freedom from archaic misconceptions. Who truly believes some of the more unlikely, yet ongoing, "Fair Youth" stories which clearly misrepresent the real importance of the aristocratic Sidney/Herbert/Wroth family to the 'ownership' of so many of the Shakespeare Sonnets?
Whilst the great "Shakespeare Authorship Question" lingers in the background, this refreshingly independent review differs from the familiarly partisan "who wrote what" approach in favour of the literal meaning of the Sonnets themselves. Thus, there is virtual freedom from tiresome conspiracy theories, over-adulation, misinterpretations and dubious speculations which have surrounded these literary masterpieces for centuries.
An inordinate number of Sonnets (154) were printed in the name of "Shakespeare" in 1609. Very obvious differences between these Sonnets plainly suggest diverse origins to any unbiased scrutiny. Then, why is there such universal reluctance to acknowledge that the clearly intimate, aristocratic and feminine nature of so many of the so-called "Shakespeare" Sonnets might just indicate separate authorship?
It is advised that this website (and associated book) seriously challenge the true authorship of the enigmatic 'Shakespeare' Sonnets when they are simply read and compared with each other. It really is that simple. Regardless of traditional myths and legends: incongruously upper-class and maternal Sonnet Nos.1-17 have caused serious doubts as to the true authorship of the clearly diverse 1609 "Shakespeare" Sonnets.
This website and associated book have identified many potential authors of the 'Shakespeare Sonnets'. Regardless of myths and legends: these findings have strictly relied on evidence from the Sonnets themselves. This website relates to the general diversity of the 'Shakespeare' Sonnets. The more detailed book may be readily purchased for in-depth author analysis, tables and appendices on a 'Sonnet by Sonnet' basis.
THE BOOK:
This introductory website freely complements this strictly independent and widely available book which reviews the potential authorship of all 154 of the clearly ambiguous 1609 'Shakespeare' Sonnets as follows: -
"The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare's Sonnets
Evidence from the Sonnets"
Kenneth Farnol - 2023
In order to purchase this intriguing book please click on the hyperlink as follows:
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/The-Diverse-Authorship-of-Shakespeares-Sonnets-by-Kenneth-Farnol
This well-researched book assesses the most logical origins of all 154 of the 'Shakespeare' Sonnets. Particular attention is paid to the style, author, subject and key-words as applicable to each Sonnet in turn. Many of the 154 'Shakespeare' Sonnets, which were so controversially published in 1609, are of very mixed origins. These investigations have nothing to do with any prevailing pro/anti-Shakespeare factions.
SO WHO DID WRITE THE SONNETS?
These entirely unbiased investigations have nothing to do with the authorship of the incomparable plays but are purely concerned with the clearly mixed and obviously enigmatic Sonnets. Whilst a number of the so-called 'Shakespeare' Sonnets were written by 'unknown authors': several are clearly attributable to the literary Sidney, Herbert, Wroth families as reflected in so many of the Sonnets. All opinions are my own.
Indeed, the importance of Mary (Sidney) Wroth (who was cousin/lover of William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke) to the 'Shakespeare' Sonnets is clearly reflected in numerous ill-disguised 'Worth' puns in Sonnet Nos. 70, 72, 74, 76, 79, 80, 83, 87, and 116 following her arranged marriage to Sir Robert Wroth in 1604. How could generations of Shakespeare scholars have missed this startling reality?
Surely, the written evidence of the Sonnets themselves must cause us to seriously question some of the more the dubious stories which are, surprisingly, still believed to this day? Open-minded readers are invited to re-read the Sonnets with total freedom from centuries of accumulated preconceptions. What could be more logical than the actual meaning, words, sentences and truths of the masterpieces in question?
There are clearly many further questions to be answered in due course. Whilst the following website and very detailed associated book should answer many of the more complex questions: the essence of these findings should, very conveniently, be found in the above preliminary notes. This is a very interesting but nevertheless very comprehensive appraisal of a clearly ancient and potentially contentious literary conundrum.
Some traditional readers may not agree with all of these seemingly radical viewpoints. However, it is hoped that the good-will, logic and extensive research which underlies this project should be very obvious? This writer is very aware of the many pitfalls of anything to do with the "Shakespeare Authorship Question"! On the other hand, please be warned that these entirely-likely findings seriously challenge the status-quo.
All we need is truth!
THE TRUE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE'S SONNETS?
CONTENTS
1 PREFACE
2 INTRODUCTION
3 DISCUSSION
4 FIVE POETS and FIVE SONNETS
5 THE EARL OF PEMBROKE
6 THE COUNTESS OF PEMBROKE
7 MARY WROTH
8 UNKNOWN AUTHORS
9 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
10 EPILOGUE
11 APPENDIX - Sonnet No. 120
1 PREFACE
The intimate, maternal and aristocratic nature of 'Shakespeare's' Sonnet Nos. 1-17 are clearly very, very different from 'genuine' so-called 'sugr'ed' Sonnet Nos. 127-154. These disparate groups, at the beginning and end of the 154 'Shakespeare' Sonnets, must surely indicate separate gender and different origins to open-minded readers when they are compared and read at simple face-value with total freedom from archaic preconceptions? Thus, the clearly written, obvious, intimate, female and upper-class nature of Sonnet Nos. 1-17, must surely cause us to seriously question the status-quo at the very least? Were these plainly private, sensitive and confidential family issues really open to 'commission' by an 'outside' playwright, no matter how eminent? Shall we begin with a few questions about plainly maternal Sonnet No. 3?
Please read “Shakespeare’s” intimate Sonnet No. 3 at simple face value:
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 uneared womb
Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?
Or who is he so fond will be the tomb
Of 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 shalt see,
Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.
But if thou live, remembered not to be,
Die single and thine image dies with thee.
Please ask yourself:
1. Was this characteristically 'maternal' poem written, in person, by a known aristocratic poet to her historically ‘reluctant to marry’, ‘Fair Youth’ son, before being wrongly printed (by default) under the name of “Shakespeare” in 1609? Who can deny a noteworthy feminine element in this Sonnet?
2. Is it really likely that this clearly intimate and aristocratic family Sonnet was, as traditionally supposed, ‘commissioned’ to be written for public entertainment by a 'commoner' playwright when it was so controversially published in 1609? Why is female authorship so consistently denied?
3. Why would such an eminent author not have written these personal, private and confidential upper-class exhortations in person? They are clearly very sensitive and obviously relate to the continuation of the dynasty by her own noble son. Again there are strong 'motherly' implications.
4. Why were the most eminent female authors of the period, denied proper recognition when so many of the so-called 'Shakespeare' Sonnets are clearly of such a private 'feminine' nature, in the manner of Sonnet Nos. 1-17 and 35/36 for example? Is this not cause for further investigation?
5. Who is aware of the probable roles of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, her son William ('Fair Youth') Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and his young cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth as so vividly reflected in so many of the Sonnets? Who can fail to at least consider these possibilities?
Which is more likely?
In the event of any doubts about the above comments; then further reading of this introductory website and/or Kenneth Farnol’s detailed book: “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from Sonnets” may be of significant interest to a wide variety of curious readers. However, readers should be totally free from a number of long-outmode preconceptions.
Whilst these thoroughly-researched findings are aimed at a wide range of open-minded readers, they are intended to be essentially simple, logical, readable and accessible. All of the following Sonnet 'analyses' look broadly outwards, by simple comparison with each other, rather than by the more inward-looking 'word for word' erudite scholarly detail with which we are so familiar.
On the one hand, it is believed that this surprisingly simple approach helps us to understand the sometimes puzzling and often varied Sonnets in general. On the other hand, Shakespeare is of course for everyone and need not be over-complicated to be fully appreciated. Perhaps, readers are already aware of the tangible gulf between Sonnet Nos. 1-126 and 127-154?
2 INTRODUCTION
“What if the words of the Sonnets revealed their mixed origins?”
This strictly independent investigation is aimed at a wide range of open-minded readers who are prepared to seriously question the true authorship of the clearly ambiguous ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. This has nothing to do with the authentic plays and solely relates to the enigmatic 1609 Sonnets. Regardless of prevailing myths and legends, this venture simply depends on the written evidence of the Sonnets themselves. The Sonnets should be re-read with all due freedom from all-male or ‘Shakespeare-only’ preconceptions.
The easiest way of interpreting the Sonnets is to ‘think outside the box’. We should broadly compare them with each other rather than over-analyzing each Sonnet in isolation. Many Sonnets are of unknown origins. Prevailing patterns, similarities and differences clearly suggest diverse authorship. Nowhere is this more evident than in the stark contrast between maternal Sonnet Nos. 1-17 and masculine Sonnet Nos. 127-154. Can these really be by the same author? These basic, candid and very logical observations lie at the heart of this project.
How surprising would it be to learn that many ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets were written by aristocratic authors? What if the actual words of the Sonnets revealed their mixed origins? Who realises that the Sonnets were divided into groups, clusters and single poems in accordance with subject, gender and authorship when they were so ambivalently published in 1609? Who is aware of the real-life stories of the literary Sidney, Herbert, Wroth family which are so accurately mirrored in the Sonnets? Then, what of the long-overlooked ‘Wroth/Worth’ puns?
When the Sonnets are re-evaluated on a ‘group by group’ basis it is obvious that ‘Sugr’ed’ Sonnet Nos. 127-154 are indeed by William Shakespeare. Sonnet Nos. 1-17 are clearly in the style of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (whose sweet metaphysical verses are so easily recognised throughout the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets). Nos. 78-91 are probably by the noble ‘Fair Youth’, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. Then, poignant female Sonnet Nos. 35-36 are attributable to his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth. Just read them.
This website complements the 2023 book by Kenneth Farnol entitled “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from the Sonnets”. Regardless of myths and legends, these strictly independent investigations seriously challenge the exclusive authorship of the plainly ambiguous “Shakespeare Sonnets”. A number of so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets, such as Nos. 1-17, are essentially female, aristocratic and intimate by nature and were self-evidently never intended for illegal publication in the name of ‘Shakespeare’ in 1609.
Many are unknown, but several so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets reflect the upper-class origins of the literary Sidney, Herbert, Wroth family. Shakespeare’s patron was William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke who was probably keeper and part-author of some of the 1609 ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. The exquisite metaphysical poetry of his mother, Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, is instantly identifiable in numerous Sonnets, as are the poignant feminine Sonnets of his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth.
Long-overlooked ‘Worth’ puns in Sonnet Nos. 79,80,82,83,87 and 116, for example, were evidently written by an anguished William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke on the occasion of the known arranged-marriage of his sweetheart Mary Sidney to Sir Robert ‘Wroth’ in 1604. Several other ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets accurately mirror the true life-stories of known authors. For example, heartfelt Sonnet No. 29, also by William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, clearly relates to his exclusion from the Royal Court following the Mary Fitton scandal of 1601.
Regardless of the status-quo: these compelling findings have been made in all good faith by simply reading the highly probable evidence of the Sonnets in question. What could be more reasonable, logical or straightforward? Whilst these, seemingly little-known, findings may be of interest to both traditional and non-traditional readers, it is acknowledged that several ongoing beliefs are widespread and still accepted by many. Yet, any basic comparison between various Sonnets soon reveals some very doubtful ambiguities and anomalies.
This project relies on the evidence of the Sonnets themselves. Many Sonnets are already divided into recognisable groups, clusters and individual poems. When read with all due freedom from an exclusively ‘Shakespeare’ mindset, then the separate style and content of many of the Sonnets soon becomes very obvious. Regardless of concocted stories: aristocratic/maternal Sonnet Nos. 1-17 are all irredeemably different from ‘genuine’ (‘Sugr’ed’) Sonnet Nos. 127-154 - which are known to be by William Shakespeare in person. It really is that simple!
This refreshing new approach has relied on freedom from centuries of academic and non-academic misinterpretations, misunderstandings, mistakes and accumulated folklore. These entirely straightforward findings have little relevance to the detailed, learned and erudite scholarship which often permeates the more advanced studies of William Shakespeare. Similarly, there is freedom from some very unlikely preconceptions which still surround the Sonnets. Attention is drawn to ongoing misrepresentations of the ‘Fair Youth’ in particular.
Who is truly aware of the truths, half-truths and untruths surrounding the “Shakespeare” Sonnets? Straightforward comparisons between Sonnets plainly suggest separate authorship. See group Nos. 1-17 and 127-154 for example. Then, by style, content, gender and diversity there is extra proof that most of the “Shakespeare" Sonnets are not by just one author. Again, it is all so very logical. This project does not depend on suppositions, theories or outmoded traditions but simply relies on the evidence of the Sonnets themselves. Just read them.
These strictly independent investigations have little to do with the incomparable drama of William Shakespeare but seriously challenge the true origins of several plainly ambiguous “Shakespeare” Sonnets. Some of the 1609 Sonnets, together with those Sonnets which appear in the plays, are indeed by William Shakespeare in person. However, by their clearly private nature alone, a number of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets are arguably by other authors and were never intended for illicit publication in the name of ‘Shakespeare’ in 1609.
There are many further reasons to question much of the accumulated mythology surrounding the Sonnets. When read at simple face-value, as with Nos. 35 and 36, they are often feminine, private and/or upperclass and were originally written for a strictly limited readership. The palpable diversity of the Sonnets plainly suggests mixed rather than sole authorship. Additionally, the Sonnets were roughly arranged into recognizable groups, clusters and individual poems by authorship, gender and subject matter when they were first printed in 1609.
It is very unlikely that William Shakespeare was ‘commissioned’ by the eminent writer, Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, to ‘ghost-write’ Sonnet Nos 1-17 to persuade her own noble ‘Fair Youth’ son to marry. Why would she not have written them herself? Similarly, who has never seriously considered some of the more improbable ‘distractions’ which are linked with the Sonnets? These range from much-vaunted ‘Fair Youth’ clichés to overstated ‘Dark Lady’, and ‘Rival Poet’ speculations of little intrinsic value.
The true role of the “Fair Youth”, Earl of Pembroke has been widely undermined by plainly fanciful ‘pretty-boy’ stories of little credibility. Pembroke went on to be a very important politician and patron and was most certainly ‘keeper’ of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. Sonnet Nos. 79,80,82,83,87 and 116 contain several long-neglected ’Worth’ puns. These clearly indicate the tormented authorship of William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke following the arranged marriage of his cousin/lover Mary Sidney to Sir Robert Wroth in 1604.
An ongoing obstacle to this thoroughly researched and logical survey of the Sonnets is the sheer weight of accumulated folklore over so many years. Yet, open-minded readers may still wonder at the underlying truths which are to be found in the words of the Sonnets. As reflected in so many ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets: there is overwhelming evidence to confirm the part-authorship of the literary Sidney, Herbert and Wroth family. In the light of these findings: impartial readers are invited to re-assess the true meaning of the Sonnets themselves.
In the face of compelling written evidence from the Sonnets in question, we can certainly find a great deal of truth, logic and reason. Then, if we stand further back from some very unlikely and long-outmoded myths and legends, we may legitimately ask how these confusing, unlikely and distracting interpretations could have been believed for so many centuries. The only answer would have to be that the very ancient nature of all this accumulated folklore has simply led to a number of traditional and archaic stories of little real substance.
This website is designed to complement a book by Kenneth Farnol: The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from the Sonnets - 2023, which is available from a number of on-line publishing sites and is refreshingly free from unthinking assumptions or myths and legends of dubious origins. This book is written in a candid, accessible and non-academic style and manages to interpret each and every one of the ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets which were published in 1609. See my own analysis of Sonnet No. 120 in the attached APPENDIX…
3 DISCUSSION
“We must first look for fundamental ‘differences’ between dubious legends and the actual written evidence of the Sonnets in question”
Further to the origins of the ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets: it is proposed that very obvious stylistic differences between disparate groups of illicitly printed 1609 ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets plainly indicate different authorship. All we need do is re-read the Sonnets at simple face-value. Satirical ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnet Nos. 127 to 154 are clearly genuine but, by style and content alone, the majority of remaining Sonnet Nos. 1 to 126 are self-evidently of mixed aristocratic or unknown authorship. How different they are! Who has never seriously wondered about some of the more improbable explanations which still surround these enigmatic masterpieces? Perhaps a judicious and unbiased reassessment of the status quo is now long overdue?
A major obstacle to the veracity of these independent investigations is the continuing widespread belief that Sonnet Nos. 1-126 are all about the ‘Fair Youth’ and that Sonnet Nos. 127-154 are all about the ‘Dark Lady’ (when by simply reading them there is substantial evidence to the contrary). This is further compounded by a persisting belief that they were all from the pen of William Shakespeare - again because of long outmoded scholarship of dubious provenance. Together with plainly concocted stories and myths and legends which have accumulated over centuries: then it can be seen that improbable explanations and traditional misconceptions, no matter how unlikely, are still widely believed. Perhaps, the sheer logic of these findings may help to allay some of these plainly unconvincing myths and legends?
Even the most conservative of readers must surely have seriously questioned some of the more unlikely stories which have been handed-down? A prime example would be the idea that intimate, maternal and strictly confidential Sonnet Nos. 1-17 (at the very least) to her own noble son (who had been, somewhat bizarrely, involved with the Sonnets as the ‘Fair Youth’ in any case) were ‘commissioned’ by one of the most eminent authors of the period to be written by an ‘outside’ playwright, of lower rank, who was not a close or aristocratic family member. This is deemed to be in total defiance of 17th C. custom and credibility. Consequently, why would she not have written them herself as plainly indicated by their distinctive intimacy, quality, style and content? Further seeds of doubt must surely be planted when reading all of the ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets rather than a select few? This is indeed an enjoyable challenge and should certainly lead to a more balanced understanding of their patently diverse authorship. Once we have open-mindedly read each and every Sonnet some very different impressions, comparisons and patterns soon emerge. What about the following examples?
Over and above his role as ‘keeper’ of the Shakespeare Sonnets a number of ‘privately’ written ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets are directly attributable to William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. These are simply too true to Pembroke’s life-history to be merely co-incidental. Sonnet No. 23 is a typically eloquent upper-class male conceit. No. 25 appears to refer to the hot-headed Earl of Essex rebellion in 1601. No. 29 clearly relates to the Earl of Pembroke’s exclusion from the Royal Court in 1601 following the notorious Mary Fitton affair. A group of ‘Rival Poet’ Sonnet Nos. 78 to 91 all refer to Pembroke’s personal dismay at losing his cousin/lover, by arranged marriage in 1604, to a man called Sir Robert ‘Wroth’: as confirmed by ubiquitous ‘Worth’ puns and w, r, o, t, h, word and letter play. No. 80 is particularly denigrating. Sonnet Nos. 116 and 87 refer to known ‘de praesenti’ marriage vows between Pembroke and Mary (Sidney) Wroth. Pembroke was a known ‘Ladies-Man’ and Sonnet Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112, 117, 120 and 121 all refer to Pembroke’s remorse for his own ‘vile’ transgressions. These findings clearly demand serious attention.
Almost without exception, the Time, Seasonal, Pastoral and Maternal nature of Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke’s exquisite poems literally leaps out of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. ‘Procreation’ Sonnets Nos. 1-17 have already been discussed and the clearly ‘Metaphysical’ nature of this instantly recognisable author is there for all to see. Much-loved ‘Gold’ Sonnet Nos. 18 and 21 are perfect examples. However, Sonnet No. 30 ‘in the style of’ Lady Pembroke may or may not be attributed to this eminent poet. On the other hand, ‘Son/Sun’ Sonnet No. 33 appears to be authentic. Similar ‘Maternal’, ‘Time’, ‘Admonishing’ and ‘Loving’ Sonnet Nos. 49, 53, 54, 63, 70, 71, 73, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 104 and 106 form a long list of further Sonnets by this idiosyncratic author. On balance, ‘odd-man-out’ 12-line ‘Non-Sonnet’ rhyming couplet No. 126, at the very end of the ‘Non-Shakespeare’ sequence, is also believed to be by this distinctive writer. Sonnet No. 73, whoever may have written it, is personally considered to be one of the finest Sonnets of all time. Poignant, equally ‘Feminine’ Sonnet Nos. 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 57, 58, 76 and 96, which appear to be by Lady Pembroke’s beloved niece Mary (Sidney) Wroth, are also easily recognised but are, of course, different again.
On the one hand, there are some very damaging ‘negative’ implications associated with the perceived ‘pretty-boy’ images of the ‘Fair Youth’. These are at extreme odds with his recorded senior role as Shakespeare’s patron. He was therefore at the very centre of the Sonnets as reflected in the text. Whilst he was clearly the historical ‘reluctant to marry’ young man of so many of the Sonnets, his important literary mother has also been generally overlooked and has habitually been deprived of due recognition. Why is this? On the other hand, there are numerous positive connotations as follows: - The ‘Fair Youth’ Earl of Pembroke is still known to be strongly associated with the Sonnets and by implication his mother is duly recognised as a major contributor and by further implication his beloved cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth is easily identified by the Wroth/Worth puns in a number of the Sonnets (some of which she actually wrote).
Numerous clues as to the mixed authorship of many of the 1609 ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets are to be found when they are open-mindedly read with total freedom from centuries of unlikely preconceptions. It is surprising just how simple and logical this idea actually is. Yet, to this day, ‘Shakespeare’ is still subjected to a certain amount of ‘over-study’ in lieu of a more straightforward and accessible approach in general. What could be more logical than relying on the ‘internal’ stories from the Sonnets themselves? These strictly independent findings also rely on direct comparison between groups of Sonnets such as Nos. 1-17 and 127-154 in general. By any standards, even a rudimentary comparison of beautiful, private and feminine Sonnet No. 33 with down to earth masculine and ‘Freudian’ lust Sonnet No. 129, may cause us to seriously doubt that they could ever have been written by the same author. Other than being of the prevailing 14-line Sonnet format, they are considered to have too little in common to have been written by just one author under the questionable background of the controversial 1609 edition. When broad comparisons are made between all 154 of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets: then our very legitimate doubts are further reinforced. Just read them.
We must first look for fundamental ‘differences’ between dubious legends and the actual written evidence of the Sonnets in question. Primary clues to the differing authorship of 154 of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets are surprisingly straightforward. Not only should the Sonnets be simply read at face-value but essential differences from each other should be duly noted. Where there are differences there will also be similarities and contrasts between groups of Sonnets and individual Sonnets alike. For example, Sonnet Nos. 1-17, at one end of the spectrum, are substantially different from Sonnet Nos. 127-154, at the other end of the spectrum.
Sonnet Nos. 1-17 (together with No. 18) are self-evidently intimate, feminine and aristocratic and so-called, ‘Sugr’ed’ Sonnet Nos. 127-154 by William Shakespeare in person, are clearly satirical, masculine and non-aristocratic. Despite all being in the common Sonnet format, they are so very different in tone, gender, style and content as to plainly indicate separate authorship. Regardless of centuries of fanciful over-analysis it really is that simple. By any standards, they are literally and figuratively poles apart and it is belatedly suggested that they should have been interpreted accordingly. The use of common keywords such as ‘fair’, ‘youth’, ‘sweet’, ‘world’ and ‘spring’ in Sonnet Nos. 1-17 clearly indicate the known origins of an extremely metaphysical and eminent female poet. By contrast, the relatively masculine tone of Sonnet Nos. 127-154 speak for themselves. As if major group differences are not sufficiently obvious: there are countless differences between individual, separate and adjoining Sonnets, as indicated by Sonnet Nos. 73 and 74 for example. Whilst both Sonnets have a common theme of death, they are so utterly different in terms of readability, quality and use of language in general. The former exceptionally beautiful Sonnet resembles Sonnet Nos. 1-17 and the latter, somewhat less-pleasing Sonnet, by contrast is by an unknown author. There are many similar differences throughout the Sonnets making it seriously unlikely that they are of common origins. Thus, we learn to read them as they were written.
It does not take long to see and wonder about the differences and similarities between Sonnets and to reach some very logical conclusions about their diverse authorship. It is advised that this strictly independent study seriously challenges many perceived misconceptions surrounding ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets. Who can continue to ignore some very persuasive links with the long-overlooked literary and historic Sidney, Herbert and Wroth family? As already stated, any obviously confidential upper-class family matters were clearly never intended for illicit publication in 1609. See Sonnet Nos. 1-17. Why has this critical, obvious and very logical point not been further pursued?
In summary, the real-life, marital and intimate family histories of the well-known literary Sidney, Herbert, Wroth family are so accurately reflected in the so-called “Shakespeare’ Sonnets, as to cast considerable doubts on dubious traditional pseudo-homosexual ‘Fair Youth’ connotations. This is not to suggest that the very real ‘Fair Youth’ (who is commonly identified as William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke) is merely a semi-mystical apparition from the imaginative pen of William Shakespeare: when the reality of William’s senior role as noble son of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke and cousin/lover of her niece Mary Sidney Wroth are so vividly portrayed in so many of Sonnet Nos. 1-126.
Who has never seriously wondered about the realities surrounding the misinterpreted ’Fair Youth’ in particular? These archaic stories, from so long ago, certainly merit some judicious reassessment. Furthermore, just because most of the Sonnets have used the thenpopular ‘Shakespeare’, or ‘English’, ABAB CDCD EFEF GG rhyming scheme, does not mean that they are all of exclusive origins. Several Sonnets are manifestly private, aristocratic and female and were selfevidently never intended for publication in the name of ‘Shakespeare’ in 1609. Just read them with all due freedom from traditional folklore. They are plainly of male and female origins. See Sonnet Nos. 1-17.
All Sonnets should be written in a strictly metrical Iambic Pentameter 14-line structure where each line has 10 syllables in five pairs. Usually, each pair has a stress on the second syllable. So-called ‘Feminine’ Sonnets, such as No. 20, may have 11 syllables per line. A traditional ‘Petrarchan’ Sonnet divides the 14-lines into an initial eight-line ‘octet’ rhyming ABBAABBA and a closing six-line ‘sestet’ rhyming CDCDCD or CDECDE. Most of ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets have 3 x 4-line ‘quatrains’ and a final 2-line ‘rhyming couplet’. ‘Sidneyan’, ‘Shakespearean’ or ‘Spencerian’ rhyming schemes might typically be: ABBA ABBA CDCD EE or ABAB CDCD EFEF GG or ABAB BCBC CDCD EE respectively.
Typically, the opening ‘octet’ of a Petrarchan Sonnet makes a proposition and the following ‘sestet’ then provides the resolution. In these cases, an appropriate change of tone is known as the ‘volta,’ or ‘turn’. In general, the Sonnet, or little song, customarily deals with age-old aspects of love and longing. There are 154 so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets to be considered. An extended narrative poem which forms part of the Shakespeare Sonnets is entitled “A Lover’s Complaint” and has long been of uncertain authorship.
We may seriously wonder why our treasured book collections should probably include beautiful leather-bound copies of The Bible, Shakespeare and Burns? The answer must surely be one of honest reverence for these undoubted cornerstones of literature. This is why, over and above the incomparable plays, all due attention must be paid, even to a suggestion, that some of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets may just possibly be by other authors? Traditional reluctance to look beyond some clearly questionable preconceptions, by simply taking note of the actual words of the Sonnets themselves, is difficult to understand and can only be attributed to accumulated folklore which seems to have passed ‘the point of no return’ long, long ago?
It is inevitable that many unanswered questions still remain. Did eminent aristocratic author, Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke really ‘commission’ (lower-ranking ‘commoner’) William Shakespeare to write clearly private and confidential family Sonnet Nos. 1-17, by proxy, to her own noble son? Who can truly answer this simple question? Whilst it is felt that many past doubts as to the authorship of William Shakespeare, in general, have been unnecessary and ill-founded, the already ambiguous Sonnets, which are of an essentially private and inward-looking nature, are an altogether different case from the dramatic, outward-looking and essentially public Plays.
This exercise has been based on the words of the Sonnets, rather than on outmoded myths, theories and speculations. Indeed, it has been a fairly straightforward task to firmly link the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets with the Sidney, Herbert and Wroth stories which, one way or another, are already associated with the Sonnets in any case. So, it is requested that readers should continue to recognize the crucial contributions of William ‘Fair Youth’ Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, his mother Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke and his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth, as portrayed in so many of the socalled ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets.
A continuing source of difficulty has been the seeming unwillingness of the ‘Shakespeare Establishment’ to look beyond the more unlikely myths and legends associated with the much vaunted ‘Fair Youth’ and ‘Dark Lady’ clichés, for example. Why is such undue emphasis still placed on these archaic distractions? This is difficult for a lifetime Shakespeare enthusiast to accept, when even the slightest doubts as to true authorship must surely deserve all due consideration? Perhaps, the ‘point of no return’ was reached long ago? Or is it a case of ‘better leaving these things unsaid’ in the interests of a long established but clearly flawed, ‘Shakespeare-only’, status quo?
Whilst this freely available website is fairly substantial, it can only partially cover all of the definitive findings of the book which addresses each and every one of the 154 Sonnets in question - thus extracting as much evidence of diverse authorship from the Sonnets as possible. Then, what of the major authors who can be used to illustrate typical Sonnets from the series? In this instance we can only look at five of the authors and five of the Sonnets in question. These are representative of four major authors (and one unknown author) and are clearly of five very different styles…
4 FIVE POETS and FIVE SONNETS
“Each of these Sonnets should be evaluated with a little insight to truly appreciate just how ‘different’ they all are”
(This chapter does not relate to the rare/quirky 1923 book entitled - ‘The Five Authors of ‘Shake-Speares Sonnets’ by H.T.S. Forrest)
So-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets by Perceived Character, Authorship, Groups and Numbers are as follows:
A SATIRICAL - William Shakespeare 1564 - 1616
Group - 127 to 154
Others - nil
TOTAL - 28
B METAPHYSICAL - Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke 1561 - 1621
Groups - 1 to 18, 53 to 54, 70 to 71, 92 to 95, 97 to 99
Others - 21, 33, 49, 63, 73, 104, 106 & 126?
TOTAL - 35
C CAVALIER - William (Fair Youth) Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke 1580 - 1630
Groups - 78 to 91, 109 to 112, 116 to 117, 120 to 121
Others - 23, 25, 29
TOTAL - 25
D FEMININE - Mary (Sidney) Wroth 1587 - 1653
Groups - 35 to 36, 40 to 42, 57 to 58
Others - 26, 76, 96
TOTAL - 10
E VARIOUS - Unknown Authors
Groups - Not Quantifiable
Others - 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 77, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125
TOTAL - 52
For the purposes of this preliminary website: I have included five so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets by (1) Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke 1561-1621, (2) her son William (fair youth) Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke 1580-1630, (3) his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth 1587-1653, (4) an ‘unknown’ author and (5) William Shakespeare 1564-1616, in person. Each of these Sonnets should be evaluated with a little insight (and freedom from traditional preconceptions) to truly appreciate just how ‘different’ they all are in style, content, gender and quality. By what logic are they all the work of one man? This fundamental philosophy lies at the heart of this project. It is recommended that we look well beyond some of the more unlikely myths and legends for a more balanced appreciation of these enigmatic masterpieces. All we seek is the Truth and there it is: in the Sonnets. Simply re-read them at face-value. The following five examples are merely representative of the 154 Sonnets which are compared, analysed and discussed at some length in “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets”. How Metaphysical, Maternal, Aristocratic, Intimate and Private is this example?
SONNET No. 5 by Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke.
Those hours, that with gentle work did frame
The lovely gaze where every eye doth dwell,
Will play the tyrants to the very same
And that unfair which fairly doth excel:
For never-resting time leads summer on
To hideous winter and confounds him there;
Sap check'd with frost and lusty leaves quite gone,
Beauty o'ersnow'd and bareness every where:
Then, were not summer's distillation left,
A liquid prisoner pent in walls of glass,
Beauty's effect with beauty were bereft,
Nor it nor no remembrance what it was:
But flowers distill'd though they with winter meet,
Leese but their show; their substance still lives sweet.
Style Metaphysical/Maternal/Aristocratic/Intimate/Private
Author Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke
Subject William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke
Key Words Hours, Fair, Time, Winter, Summer, Beauty, Distil, Sweet, Substance
METAPHYSICAL SONNET No. 5 is an intriguing poem by Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke. Could anyone else really have written this clearly first-person poem to her ‘beautiful’ son? Why would she not have written it - especially if she just happened to have a well-known interest in science and alchemy? Not only does this lovingly written Sonnet contain significant Metaphysical seasonal/time conceits but refers at some length to fundamental scientific distillation processes as the essence of ‘substance’ in common with her own similar Sonnet Nos. 6 and 54. See Book. Attention is drawn to the typical seasonal aspects of the above Sonnet, together with the ubiquitous use of the keyword ‘Sweet’. This is clearly a work of supreme quality.
There seems little reason to expect a visionary and Humanistic late 16th C. Post-Renaissance interpreter of the ‘Protestant’ Psalms not to have a parallel interest in Metaphysics which is also associated with the perceived nature of Creation, Being and Existence. If we read the first line of Sonnet No. 53 by the same author, we find an almost text book definition of Metaphysics as follows: -
“what is your substance, whereof are you made… (?)”
"Metaphysics" is defined in the English Illustrated Dictionary as follows:
"Branch of philosophy dealing with the first principles of things, including such concepts as being, substance, space, time, identity, etc"
"Metaphysical poets" is defined in the English Illustrated Dictionary as follows:
"Term used to designate certain 17th c. English Poets including, Donne, Cowley, Herbert (George) and Vaughan."
These 'Metaphysical' poets were all close contemporaries of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke. This is a very important pointer to her very characteristic contribution to the so-called 'Shakespeare' Sonnets. How can we disregard the compelling Metaphysical ‘conceits’ of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke who was a known associate of John Donne (Senior) 1571-1631? Just read them. Whilst William Shakespeare was not considered to be inordinately ‘Metaphysical’ - it seems most unlikely that he did not also attend Lady Pembroke’s soirées at Wilton House. Both Shakespeare and Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke would, accordingly, have been very aware of the Metaphysical work of John Donne and others.
Then, what of the distinctively ‘cavalier’ poetry of Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke’s noble son, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke? Who can ignore his explicit play on the word ‘Wroth/Worth’ on this occasion? See comparable Sonnet Nos. 80 and 116. Who else might have written so bitterly about these extremely sensitive matters concerning the arranged-marriage, in 1604, of his beloved cousin/lover, Mary, to a “tall” man, “of goodly pride” called ‘Wroth’ (in a similar manner to lines 7 and 8 of Sonnet No. 116)?
“It is the star to every wandering bark (See Sonnet No. 80)
Whose worth’s unknown although, his height be taken”
Who can refute the ill-disguised innuendo of these historical Wroth/Worth’ Sonnets? In truth, this clearly has nothing to do with ‘Spanish Galleons’ or any other puritanical, misleading or traditional folklore. Who can remember ever being shown such a potentially significant link between ‘worth’ Sonnet Nos. 116 and 80, or the other ‘Wroth/Worth’ Sonnets for that matter? The following explicit “ride” poem is vital to these discoveries - and is considered to be critical to real understanding of the often-misconstrued 1609 Sonnets.
SONNET No. 80 by William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke
O, how I faint when I of you do write,
Knowing a better spirit doth use your name,
And in the praise thereof spends all his might,
To make me tongue-tied, speaking of your fame!
But since your WORTH, wide as the ocean is,
The humble as the proudest sail doth bear,
My saucy bark inferior far to his (See Sonnet No. 116)
On your broad main doth wilfully appear.
Your shallowest help will hold me up afloat,
Whilst he upon your soundless deep doth ride;
Or being wreck'd, I am a WORTHLESS boat,
He of tall building and of goodly pride:
Then if he thrive and I be cast away,
The worst was this; my love was my decay.
Style Cruel, Jealous, Bitter and Insulting
Author William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke
Subject Marriage of Mary Sidney to Sir Robert WROTH in 1604
Key Words Worth, Worthless, Write, Worst, Wreck’d, Doth, You, Bark.
‘GOODLY PRIDE’ SONNET No. 80 by William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke is perhaps the single most obscene, offensive and revealing Sonnet in the whole collection. Following initial mock-jealous reference to a “Rival Poet” in Sonnet No. 80, a clearly bitter William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke makes some crude, insensitive and plainly disparaging heterosexual “ride” allusions which; together with several very important ‘Worth/Wroth’ puns, anagrams, alliterations and ‘Worth’ derivatives, such as ‘Write’, leads to serious questions as to whether William Shakespeare could really have written these obviously intimate and personal Sonnets relating to the initial parting of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke from his beloved cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth in 1604.
The intimate use of the word ‘you’, as opposed to ‘thou’, is further discussed in the book. Repeated, direct and indirect play on the word ‘Worth’, in this and other Sonnets, certainly demands further attention. Mary Wroth went on to write honestly, obsessively and passionately about these matters in later years. Whilst these works are a little unusual, they are of supreme literary importance. These pointed “Wroth” references are noteworthy and realistic pointers to her being both subject and object of some of the more poignant private and personal Sonnets which are key to my assertions. Make no mistake these are extremely insulting, unamusing and, in my opinion, uncalled-for personal metaphors; which I was initially reluctant to draw attention to. In fact, to any casual reading they would probably have passed unnoticed. See Book. However, they are crucial to these investigations and throw a startlingly new light on these matters. Then, what of the wistful femininity of Sonnet No. 36?
SONNET No. 36 by Mary (Sidney) Wroth
Let me confess that we two must be twain,
Although our undivided loves are one:
So shall those blots that do with me remain
Without thy help by me be borne alone.
In our two loves there is but one respect,
Though in our lives a separable spite,
Which though it alter not love's sole effect,
Yet doth it steal sweet hours from love's delight.
I may not evermore acknowledge thee,
Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame,
Nor thou with public kindness honour me,
Unless thou take that honour from thy name:
But do not so; I love thee in such sort
As, thou being mine, mine is thy good report.
Style Female, Heartfelt, Forgiving, Adolescent
Author Mary (Sidney) Wroth
Subject William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke?
Key Words Blots, Spite, Love, Guilt, Shame, Honour
‘FEMALE’ SONNET No. 36 seamlessly follows on from associated No. 35 with a very pronounced ‘female’ character. By ‘female’ I mean that it has all the hallmarks of ‘feminine’ authorship rather than having an extra technical 11th unstressed so-called ‘feminine’ syllable at the end of each 10-syllable iambic pentameter line in question. Sonnet No. 36 also resembles similar Sonnet No. 96 which has the same two last lines (but in a slightly different context).
‘But do not so; I love thee in such sort,
As thou being mine, mine is thy good report.’
Poignant, sensitive and forgiving ‘cri de cœur’ Sonnet No. 36 has plainly been widely misunderstood and deserves to be read literally and with all due freedom from a pervasively masculine ‘Shakespeare’ mindset. This intimate, female and ‘juvenile’ poem should be carefully, sympathetically and humanely interpreted for its very probable real meaning. Had we never heard of Mary (Sidney) Wroth, or William Shakespeare for that matter, we might still be forgiven for seeing this Sonnet for what it says about the overwhelming love of a lonely and isolated young girl for her older and more worldly lover from whom she is to be irrevocably parted. How might 17th C. sentiments be construed in a 21st C. ‘feminist’ context? In the manner of, significantly, adjacent Sonnet No. 35 the extremely likely female writer of these Sonnets talks of ‘blots’ which are easily construed in the context of loss of virginity in a similar manner to the last two lines of Sonnet No. 35: -
‘That I an accessory needs must be
To that sweet thief which sourly robs from me.’
Then, what could be more ‘different’ than the following, almost incomprehensible, Sonnet from another world?
SONNET No. 125 by an unknown author
Were 't aught to me I bore the canopy,
With my extern the outward honouring,
Or laid great bases for eternity,
Which prove more short than waste or ruining?
Have I not seen dwellers on form and favour
Lose all, and more, by paying too much rent,
For compound sweet forgoing simple savour,
Pitiful thrivers, in their gazing spent?
No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,
And take thou my oblation, poor but free,
Which is not mix'd with seconds, knows no art,
But mutual render, only me for thee.
Hence, thou suborn'd informer! a true soul
When most impeach'd stands least in thy control.
Style Obsequious?
Author Unknown
Subject Form and Favour?
Key Words Form, Favour, Pitiful, Thrivers, Obsequious, Oblation, Me for Thee.
‘OBSEQUIOUS’ SONNET No. 125 more or less finishes ‘non-Shakespeare’ Sonnet Nos. 1-126. Is this the most ‘different’, or ‘difficult’, Sonnet in the whole collection? So why is this rather self-important Sonnet with ‘monarchic’ overtones situated in this particular position at the end of the sequence? As already noted in Sonnet No. 124, we might be excused for thinking that this a-typical Sonnet was written by an, as yet, unidentified senior aristocrat such as Mary Wroth’s father Robert Sidney (?) who was close to Royalty. References to ‘impeachable suborn’d informers’ (spies?) further serve to deepen the mystery of this dry, ‘political’ and challenging Sonnet from so long ago. Finally, how ‘different’ again is the following, very distinctive, Sonnet by William Shakespeare in person?
SONNET No. 127 by William Shakespeare
In the old age black was not counted fair,
Or if it were, it bore not beauty's name;
But now is black beauty's successive heir,
And beauty slander'd with a bastard shame:
For since each hand hath put on nature's power,
Fairing the foul with art's false borrow'd face,
Sweet beauty hath no name, no holy bower,
But is profaned, if not lives in disgrace.
Therefore my mistress' brows are raven black,
Her eyes so suited, and they mourners seem
At such who, not born fair, no beauty lack,
Slandering creation with a false esteem:
Yet so they mourn, becoming of their woe,
That every tongue says beauty should look so.
Style Satirical
Author William Shakespeare
Subject Beauty
Key Words Black, Beauty, Foul, Fair
‘Genuine’ en-bloc Shakespeare Sonnet Nos. 127 to 154 are conveniently, characteristically and deliberately grouped together. They are all clearly by William Shakespeare in person. They are very distinctive in their own right and are obviously very different from remaining non-Shakespeare Sonnet Nos. 1-126. They have an instantly perceptible ‘saucy’ style and content which centres on often faithless ‘mistresses’ (of varying complexions) and were reportedly written for ‘his private (male) friends’. Whilst, surprisingly ‘Freudian’, in the manner of ‘Lust’ Sonnet No. 129, some of them, such as Sonnet No. 141, are remarkably philosophical.
Sonnet Nos. 138 and 144 can be readily traced back to the 1590’s and Sonnet No. 145 is believed to have its origins in Stratford-upon-Avon in the 1580’s. ‘SUGR’ED’ SONNET No. 127 (see above) by William Shakespeare, in person, directly moves-on from the predominantly aristocratic so-called ‘Fair Youth’ Sonnets which are numbered from 1 to 126. Some of these, of course, do relate to William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke who was Shakespeare’s patron and has long been closely associated with the Sonnets in any case. If we comprehensively and honestly compare the above five Sonnets with each other, we shall have many reasons to doubt that they are of common authorship. Why would even the most flexible of 17th C. playwrights use such utterly different formats, why would he write so many and for whom were they actually written? Just read them.
5 THE EARL OF PEMBROKE
“William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, also known as the ‘Fair Youth’, is indelibly associated with the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets”.
We begin by duly recognising the ‘Fair Youth’ as William Herbert Earl of Pembroke, his mother as Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke and his cousin/lover as Mary (Sidney) Wroth - as so vividly portrayed in Sonnet Nos. 80, 5 and 36 respectively (see enclosed). These intimate Sonnets obviously relate to private aristocratic issues. So why should we believe that they were written by ‘outsider’ William Shakespeare? Readers are also requested to look beyond some very distracting half-truths surrounding the ‘Fair Youth’. Pembroke was known to be something of a ‘lady’s man’ and from an early age, his true sexuality has been misrepresented by under-informed scholars over many years.
The following chapter is at the heart of this project and relies on the precise identification of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, as the ‘Fair Youth’ who is so ineradicably associated with the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. On the other hand, would it be fair to suggest that his over-all image has been compromised by some very misleading myths and legends? Whilst an undoubtedly good-looking young man, was he really the subject of admiration, in writing, by an older playwright of a different social class? Surely, these very personal matters would have been strictly confidential in any case? Weren’t the ‘Fair Youth’ images of Sonnet Nos. 1-17, for example, really instigated by the real-life adoration of the Countess of Pembroke who was his devoted mother? Just read them.
Intimate Sonnet Nos. 1-17 could not be clearer in their private desire to continue the noble Pembroke dynasty. Therefore, as they directly relate to the Earl of Pembroke, known as the Fair Youth’, then who else but Mary Sidney Herbert, Lady Pembroke could have written them? Is it really possible that such deeply sensitive private family issues could have been written about, even by proxy, on behalf of one of the greatest poets of her generation? How unlikely is that? Remember that intimate Sonnets were often intended to be exchanged between private individuals rather than printed for mass consumption. This explains their inherent intimacy. We must read them accordingly. Maybe, some other loving Sonnets, such as Nos. 35, 36 and 40, were actually written by a smitten Mary (Sidney) Wroth who was his cousin/lover? Which is most likely?
This powerful nobleman went on to be a senior member of the early 17th C. Royal Court and became a foremost patron of William Shakespeare and many other writers and artists of the period. In addition to Pembroke’s official duties, he was clearly custodian and contributor to the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets as they became known in the illicit 1609 edition. Whilst bearing ‘Shakespeare’s’ name, by style and content alone, it is very obvious that only a small proportion of the 1609 Sonnets were by William Shakespeare in person. Even the most conservative of readers must surely recognise that ‘genuine’ Sonnet Nos. 127 to 154 are strikingly ‘different’?
The true role of the legendary ‘Fair Youth’ lies at the centre of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. He is considerably more than just the good-looking ‘young-man’ so beloved of commentators down the years! As Shakespeare’s patron, the ‘Fair Youth’ William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke has always been central to the 1609 Sonnets. However, in the face of more likely evidence, who seriously believes that he, or William Shakespeare, would have sanctioned the publication of cross-class and deeply personal ‘pretty-boy’ pseudo-homosexual Sonnets? Under these circumstances, would ‘commoner’ playwright William Shakespeare really have been the right candidate to repetitively, obsessively and publicly urge his noble Patron to marry? This is plainly questionable to say the least. Would William Shakespeare really have written these obviously private upper-class Sonnets - and why?
Sonnet Nos. 1-17, which first initiated this project, are self-evidently intimate, aristocratic and maternal by any standards. Further Sonnets regarding Mary Sidney Herbert’s fractious relationship with her muchloved, but wayward, son are to be found throughout the Sonnets. See Sonnet Nos. 33, 70 and 95 for example. Then, a painfully honest William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke reproaches himself in Sonnet Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112, 117 and 121. Similarly, he is admonished/forgiven by his young cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth in Sonnet Nos. 35, 36 (see below) and 40. Whilst some ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets are plainly authentic, others are conspicuously intimate, upper-class and/or of unknown provenance. They are just so ‘different.’
Time and again we encounter aspects of the Herbert/Wroth romance and consequent jealousies aroused by the arranged Sidney/Wroth and Herbert/Talbot marriages of 1604. These are particularly evident in worth Sonnet Nos. 80 and 83, for example. Try and read them with absolute freedom from centuries of dubious preconceptions. This is direct written evidence from the Sonnets in question: if we only see them as largely aristocratic, plainly heterosexual, obviously intimate and clearly not by that otherwise incomparable playwright who we so respectfully know as William Shakespeare. He just deserves the truth, regardless of which Sonnets he may, or may not, have written in 1609.
In spite of the vagaries of the pirated 1609 Sonnets: why (to this day) are so many of the obviously varied Sonnet Nos. 1 to 126 so strangely, noticeably and stylistically grouped together by gender, quality, language and subject matter in so many cases? See outstanding Sonnet group Nos. 94, 95, 97, 98, together with (15-line) No. 99, by Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, for example. As Shakespeare’s ‘Patron’, the so-called ‘Fair Youth’ William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke not only wrote some of the ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets but seems to have ‘owned’ them before they were illicitly printed in 1609. Whilst Pembroke clearly did not sanction the publication of at least 154 Sonnets in his care (many in the name of Shakespeare), we almost certainly owe the survival of these assorted masterpieces to this avid collector.
‘Wroth’ Sonnet Nos. 78 to 91, referring to intimate marital issues, were clearly written by heterosexual William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke; as were ‘Disgrace’ Sonnet No. 29, ‘Marriage’ Sonnet No. 42 116 and ‘Vile’ Sonnet Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112 and 121 for example. See Book. Frequent references to the much vaunted “Dark Lady”, in Sonnet Nos. 127-154, may well be apocryphal in the manner of similar references in ‘Loves Labours Lost’. Why have these ambiguities been so overlooked for so long? Whilst there clearly are a number of ‘Dark Lady’ (and ‘Mistress’) references in the strictly ‘Shakespeare’ sequence, they may well have been exaggerated in the public mindset. It is strongly believed that these traditional ‘Fair Youth’, ‘Rival Poet’ and ‘Dark Lady’ ‘explanations’ from so long ago may well be counterproductive when assessing the real content and true nature of the Sonnets in question.
Whilst rarely guessing: it is speculated that distinctively feminine Sonnet No. 20 could well have been sent to the lusty young Earl of Pembroke by an amorous lady friend, thus explaining its distinctive presence in the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. This ‘one-off’ Sonnet, self-evidently, does not engage with separate ‘dark lady’ Sonnets at the other end of the collection and has no relevance to the nearby ‘motherly’ Sonnets of the Countess of Pembroke, such as Summer’s Day No. 18 of course. However, they clearly illustrate just how attractive this up-and-coming young (Fair Youth) nobleman was to ladies in general as reflected in his own poetry, some of the Sonnets and by the records of the time. These poems were clearly held in Pembroke’s private papers prior to their illicit publication in 1609.
Understanding the true nature of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke is deemed vital. Recourse to the scandalous Mary Fitton episode in 1601 is strongly recommended. William Herbert was described by Clarendon as ‘immoderately given up to women’ and many of the selfadmitted so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets (such as Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112 and 121) do little to repudiate this idea. Contrary to popular belief; the so-called ‘Fair Youth’ was in fact the subject of a great deal of heterosexual scandal as recorded by contemporary accounts - including some of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets.
Some very interesting stories from his early encounters with Mary Fitton and Mary Sidney (Wroth) for that matter, may be found by those who might wish to see this powerful 17th C. nobleman in his true colours! This influential aristocrat was clearly brought up to be a senior member of the Royal Court and was also Patron to many of the prominent artists and writers of the period. Thus, he would certainly have been closely associated with the works of William Shakespeare.
6 THE COUNTESS OF PEMBROKE
“By style and content, we can very readily identify this outstandingly ‘Metaphysical’ poet as Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke”
Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke lived between 1561 and 1621 and was infinitely more important to literature in general and Shakespeare in particular than has been generally acknowledged. Her writings are of such high quality as to stand alone in any context. Not only is her devoted maternal relationship with her ‘Fair Youth’ son, William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke clearly reflected in the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets but the sheer Metaphysical beauty of her poetry is instantly recognisable as in Sonnet Nos. 1-17 and many others.
As sister of the great Sir Philip Sidney, she was a worthy successor in terms of the translation/composition of the incomparable Metrical Psalms and many other works. She was a noteworthy patron of Literature and the Arts in general and many of her contemporary poets and playwrights attended her assemblies at Wilton house. She was undoubtedly well acquainted with the foremost playwright of the period, who we know as William Shakespeare. Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that her poetry could not be more different from the so-called ‘Sugr’ed’ Sonnets of William Shakespeare as mirrored in the Sonnets. Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke was much loved by her niece Mary (Sidney) Wroth as reflected in her prolific later writings. However, Mary Sidney junior never achieved the respect afforded to her beloved aunt in her own lifetime.
It would be an instructive exercise to pick-out, by feminine style and content alone, the more obvious female examples within the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. As already stated, strictly confidential familial Sonnet Nos. 1-17 (and others) regarding the historical reluctance of a known member of the aristocracy to marry are most unlikely to have been ‘commissioned’ to a relatively lower-ranking playwright, when the said poems are so clearly maternal in origin and were probably written to her own noble son by such an eminent female poet.
By style and content alone, we can very readily identify this outstandingly Metaphysical poet as Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke. Just read them and note some prevailing keywords; such as ‘World’, ‘Sweet’, ‘Beauty’, ‘Fair’, or ‘Spring’ for example. The words, humanity, sentiments and sheer quality of this sublime poet literally leap off the page. This is not theatre. This is real. Just read them. Can Metaphysical elements, alone, just be ignored? How could previous generations have failed to recognise the historical beauty and sophistication of her poetry within so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnet Nos. 1-17 alone? As the amanuensis sister of Sir Philip Sidney, didn’t she translate most of the incomparable Psalms and write so much else? Surely such an outstanding literary figure was free from the prevailing prejudices of the period? Does such an eminent literary figure really deserve to be excluded from the Sonnets with which, if we understand Nos. 1-17, she is so closely associated?
7 MARY WROTH
“Let us now examine the universal failure to recognise Mary ‘Wroth’s’ ill-disguised name, punned as ‘Worth’, in the ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets”
Why is one of the most prolific and important female writers of the 17th C. not better known? Then, why is there such historical reluctance to acknowledge the clearly female aspects of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. Let us now examine the seemingly universal failure to recognise Mary ‘Wroth’s’ ill-disguised name, punned as ‘Worth’, in the ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. How could such positive evidence have been so overlooked for so long? The ‘Wroth/Worth’ witticism seems to have caused great amusement in the early 17th C. It was simply too good a pun to miss and closely links her to the Sonnets. Mary Wroth’s role as writer and cousin/lover of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (who is central to the Sonnets) was obviously not realised by previous generations. Potentially sceptical readers may wish to re-evaluate this evidence of varied authorship.
A considerable part of this study focusses on the female contributions of Mary Sidney ‘Wroth’ together with her beloved aunt Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke. Double meanings, jokes, puns, codes and alliterations were certainly not unknown to 16th/17th C. poets. Regardless of derivatives, such as ‘wrote’ or ‘wert’, there are 27 ‘Worth’ references throughout all 154 Sonnets. Of these 12 ‘Wroth/Worth’ puns occur in ‘Rival Poet’ Sonnet Nos. 78-86. Thus, 44.5% of all ‘worth’ references are to be found in less than 11% of the 154 Sonnets in question. Most of these puns are directly associated with the Sonnets of William Herbert Earl of Pembroke and/or Mary Wroth herself.
The most revealing letter-play on ‘Wroth/Worth’ in Sonnet No. 76 by Mary (Sidney) ‘Wroth’, is: -
‘That every word doth almost tell my name’, (m a r y w r o t h).
This subtly coded message appears to be totally intentional yet only becomes obvious when it has been recognised in the first place! Other pseudo-homosexual suppositions regarding the ‘Fair Youth’ are clearly of dubious provenance when the truly heterosexual nature of the historically recorded relationship between William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and his young cousin Mary Sidney, who went on to become the significant writer Mary Wroth and whose name, punned as ‘Worth’, appears within and beyond the so-called “Shakespeare” Sonnets. In addition to some obvious Wroth/Worth ‘word-play’; there are other examples of ‘letter-play’ surrounding the predominance of the letters, ‘w’, ’r’, ’o’, ’t’ and ‘h’! See Sonnet Nos. 79 and 82, for example. With further reference to the word ‘Worth’, it is warned that Sonnet Nos. 80 (enclosed) and 83 are extremely personal, explicit and offensive. Note how they form a group with each other.
Do age-old puritan references to Spanish Galleons really ring true when we realise just what these Sonnets are all about? Please read them with all due freedom from traditional preconception in order to fully appreciate just how disagreeable these Sonnets actually are. I hardly need explain the truly shocking underlying double-meanings to a relatively well-informed and liberal modern readership. Does the word ‘worth’ now take on an entirely different meaning? Yet who can honestly say that they were truly aware of these previously overlooked Worth/Wroth appearances in the ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets?
There is clearly some association of the frequently used word ‘Worth’ as an ill-disguised play on the distinctive surname of Sir Robert ‘Wroth’; ‘He of tall building and goodly pride’, (see below) who was obliged to marry young Mary Sidney in 1604. What else might explain these findings in view of the undoubtedly frequent use of the word ‘Worth’ in the middle portion of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets? This is clearly deliberate and demands further investigation. This is just one vivid example of ‘evidence from the Sonnets’. Thus, if correctly identified, Mary Wroth is closely associated with the so-called “Shakespeare” Sonnets as both writer and subject.
Not only do these w. r. o. t. h./Wroth/Worth acrostics indicate strong links with the arranged-marriage of Mary Sidney to Sir Robert Wroth in 1604 but also suggest her close romantic attachment to, a very jealous, William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. By any standards, this plainly heterosexual and historically accurate relationship is far more likely than some of the more traditional ‘Fair Youth’ stories of the popular imagination. This ‘glossed-over’ aristocratic love affair lies at the heart of many of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets and is infinitely more plausible than traditional pseudo-homosexual speculations of questionable taste and provenance. This truly is ‘Evidence from the Sonnets’ and is the essence of this project.
Does this change everything? The Ubiquitous Wroth/Worth puns appear throughout Mary Sidney Wroth’s own later writings such as “all Worth lost for Riches” from ‘Loves Victory’ and were also used by other writers. For example, a typically witty, Ben Jonson said “my Lady Wroth is unworthily married on a jealous husband”. It is clear that the obvious, deliberate and persistent Wroth/Worth jokes/puns, as quoted, are crucial to the long-overlooked and unexpected association of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets with both William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth. All in the name ‘Wroth’.
8 UNKNOWN AUTHORS
“As in Sonnet Nos. 122-125, the potential upper-class origins of any unknown author may be guessed by its ‘pomposity’ or ‘deference’”
By its very nature the word ‘Unknown’, as opposed to ‘anonymous’, does little to establish the real origins of many of the otherwise unspecified so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets. Other than by further specialist investigations, these frustratingly unknown writers simply cannot be truly identified. By the very nature of Sonnets, unless given away by ill-disguised puns, they are usually intended to be anonymous. These particular viewpoints have relied on direct evidence from the Sonnets together with their known historical or cultural backgrounds or long-established bona-fide designations.
Many Sonnets were designed to be copied or exchanged. Other Sonnets were clearly secret, intimate and confidential. Indeed some, such as No. 80, in particular, were written by recognisable individuals under extreme anguish in the aftermath of known events such as arranged-marriages for example. Only by style and content, or by known association, can we even begin to guess some possible candidates for authorship. For example, Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke is almost instantly recognised by the sheer beauty and very high quality of her poetry and also by her well-known obsession for Time, Seasons and ubiquitous ‘sweet’ keywords. But most unknown authors do not have any such guidelines to follow.
Sometimes a Sonnet, such as No. 30, might be in the style of Lady Pembroke but could just as readily be attributed to a pupil or close follower. Thus, it has been designated as ‘unknown’. We can sometimes recognise the gender of the author in question by simple recognition of the text in the manner of Mary Wroth in Sonnet Nos. 35, 36 and 40, or by recognition of the distinctive ‘Cavalier’ style of the Earl of Pembroke in Sonnet Nos 109 to 112 for example. Sometimes the almost unintelligible subject matter of say ‘political’ Sonnet Nos. 122 to 125 may be ‘indicative’ of potential authorship.
Certainly, the potential upper-class origins of any unknown author who is under scrutiny, may be guessed by its perceived ‘pomposity’ or ‘deference’. See Sonnet Nos. 122-125. There are countless thematic clues to be considered when assessing the underlying nature of any given Sonnet. Nevertheless, similarities/differences with other Sonnets are of major importance. What is the Sonnet all about? How does the author express their inmost feelings? Is there a recognisable ‘voice’ or ‘signature’? Subject matter is always a guide to possible known sources but again does not often lead to any useable conclusions. Then, interrelated use of distinctive language or familiar idioms may be of some assistance to the potential identity of a given author. At best, it really is akin to recognition of the voices all around us. At worst, we simply do not know!
Unfortunately, guessing is sometimes all we have to rely upon. Without known precedents, the accurate identification of all unknown writers is beyond the scope of this project. This particular venture has relied on the words of the Sonnets for evidence of authorship when historical parallels have been taken into account, such as Nos. 25 and 29 by a very young and disillusioned Earl of Pembroke. Notice has been taken of Pembroke and Shakespeare’s contemporary writers (again with some background knowledge) such as Ben Jonson and Samuel Daniel who were known to be close to the Sidney circle and who’s wording very much resembled known authors in the manner of Sonnet Nos. 26 and 106 respectively.
Some early 17th C. poets, such as John Donne, display recognisable Metaphysical traits which may well be clues to their origins. As a foremost Patron of the period in question: the Earl of Pembroke probably owned representative sonnets by the likes of John Davies of Hereford, Michael Drayton, Fulke Greville, William Drummond and many others who may have attended Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke’s literary soirees at Wilton house. Thus, some very interesting candidates for ‘Unknown’ status may be identified in due course. Many, of course may remain ‘Unknown’ for ever.
9 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
“Then what of the 'other' Shakespeare Sonnets which remain to be found in the Shakespeare Plays?”
The tenor of most of Sonnet Nos. 1-126 clearly indicates that private aristocratic Sidney, Herbert, Wroth family issues were never intended to be published under the name ‘Shakespeare’ in 1609. Moreover, by style and content, a number of Sonnet Nos. 1-126 are plainly by unknown writers. The ‘genuine’ (Sugr’ed) Shakespeare Sonnet Nos. 127-154 are known to have their origins in the 1590’s and were presumably ‘tacked-on’ to the illicit 1609 publication to lend dubious authenticity to the total collection. They are clearly very, very different from the personal, aristocratic and feminine content which characterises so many of Sonnet Nos. 1 to 126. Some readers may be quite upset that William Shakespeare did not write all 154 Sonnets bearing his name in 1609.
How can we repudiate the unique word-play, letter-play and vital keywords associated with each and every Sonnet in question? They are so very, very dissimilar by any measure. Then what of all the 'other' Shakespeare Sonnets (which were intended for publication) and which remain to be found in the Shakespeare Plays? This quote from Francis Mere’s 1598 ‘Palladis Tamia’ clearly indicates a very distinctive group of so-called ‘sugr’ed’ sonnets (Nos. 127-154) for limited distribution amongst Shakespeare’s (male) friends:
“As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras: so the sweete wittie soule of Ouid (Ovid) lives in mellifluous & Hony-tongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private friends, &c.”
Furthermore, if we read the evocative and loosely plotted 1592 6-line stanza (sestet) epic poem known as Venus and Adonis: the tone is set for the subsequent History, Comedy and Tragedy of William Shakespeare’s dramatic plays. The 7-line stanza ‘Rime Royal’ Ovidderived story of the mythical ‘Lucretius’ presages Shakespeare’s wellknown ‘Roman’ Plays. Thus, we can readily associate the rising genius of William Shakespeare as the true writer of, not only the Plays but also some of his own, so-called, ‘Sugr’ed’ Sonnets in the early 1590’s.
This investigation has uncovered several misattributed Sonnets which are patently not by William Shakespeare when simply read, analysed and compared with each other. Whilst these are often of the highest standard, this may well be distressing to many Shakespeare lovers. Who has not considered that exquisite Sonnet No. 18 is the definitive “Shakespeare” Sonnet: even if it does bear so many signs of intimate, doting, maternal, pastoral and upper-class authorship? Although, it seems very probable that there may be a few genuine Shakespeare Sonnets which were not printed in 1609. Additionally, when finding that so many Sonnets were not by William Shakespeare, then, it is even more vital to try and establish those which were by this master dramatist. Where better to start than in the Plays themselves? On the one hand, Shakespeare mercilessly parodied the Petrarchan Sonnet. On the other hand, Shakespeare was not entirely averse to them per se.
By a process of omission alone, there is every reason to suppose that Sonnet Nos. 127-154, do not represent Shakespeare’s total Sonnet writing output as also reflected by the small number of ‘other’ Sonnets which are to be found in the Plays. Maybe, these (hypothetical) ‘missing’ Sonnets would compensate for the distressingly small and limited/private subject matter of those which were jointly published with others in 1609? William Shakespeare would have wished for a better and more exclusive edition bearing his name in 1609. In my opinion, although by the hand of a master, the 28 largely salacious, socalled ‘Sugr’ed’ 1590’s Sonnets, ‘to his private friends’, (printed in 1609) simply do not reflect William Shakespeare at his incomparable best.
Sonnet No. 130, revisits a (presumed) dark-complexioned ‘mistress’ and speaks for itself in mixed terms of colour, gender, breath and speech. By contrast with acrimonious ‘Lust’ Sonnet No. 129, this Sonnet is far more affectionate and accepting of perceived female shortcomings. Nevertheless, there is a degree of blatant chauvinism and cynicism in this Sonnet which fits well with the general ‘Sugr’ed’ tone of many of the remaining ‘genuine’ Shakespeare Sonnet Nos. 127-154. They clearly stand alone and have nothing whatsoever to do with remaining Sonnet Nos. 1-126. ‘Wilful’ Sonnet Nos. 135, 136 and 143 are a case in point. However, some of the later ‘genuine’ Sonnets, such as ‘senses’ Sonnet No. 141 are surprising philosophical and are, thankfully, very indicative of the genius of William Shakespeare.
On the other hand, virtually every mention of the word ‘Sonnet’ in the Shakespeare Plays has been the subject of endless humour, mockery and ridicule. A good example may be the story of the ‘Sonnet to a Horse’ in Henry V, act 3, which is followed by an actual Sonnet entitled ‘Thus far, with rough and all unable pen’, which forms the final chorus/epilogue at the end of the same play. By diversity of style and content alone there are simply too many anomalies to be credibly attributable to just one author. Then, why are Shakespeare’s exclusive Sonnet Nos. 127-154 so plainly ‘tagged-on’ at the end of ‘non-Shakespeare Sonnets Nos. 1-126? Why are less popular and a-typical ‘Cupid’ Sonnet Nos. 153 and 154 used to finish the collection?
10 EPILOGUE
“Regardless of scholarship, the Sonnets were privately written by 17th C. people for 17th C. people - they were clearly not written for ‘us’”
Curious readers of “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets” are invited to visit Appendix 2: ‘The Penshurst Poems’, for further insight into the early beginnings of an ostensibly ‘secret’ romance between William Herbert and his cousin Mary. At best, this website can only outline the wide-ranging research and in-depth findings of this book. It is already known that ‘Fair Youth’ William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke has long been widely (but somewhat frivolously) associated with the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets in any case.
Meanwhile, it is highly likely that some documents in Pembroke’s care were nefariously obtained by unscrupulous printers. His very likely continuing role as Shakespeare’s powerful patron/keeper may explain the strange lack of original Shakespeare documents. These probably came under Pembroke’s bona-fide ‘safe-keeping’ as he gained in power and influence. Some documents possibly became lost through the depredations of piratical printers or for other unknown reasons. Perhaps, they were subsequently lost without trace in one of the 17th C. floods or fires at Baynard’s Castle, Wilton House or elsewhere? The catastrophic loss of so much literary treasure is most distressing.
William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke was a considerable and distinctive poet in his own right as was his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth. These lovers went on to have two children later in life. It would be difficult to truly understand the so-called ‘Shakespeare’s’ Sonnets without at least a working knowledge of this important figure (who was clearly more than just, a somewhat diminutive, ‘Fair Youth’!) The significance of Mary (Sidney) Wroth to the 1609 Sonnets is of especial importance if only the evidence of the words of the Sonnets are taken into account. See prevalence of ‘Worth’ puns, wordplay and metaphors between Sonnet Nos. 78 - 91 for example. Whilst largely free from so-called ‘theories’, some theoretically contentious conclusions: such as the possible identity of the ‘Rival Poet’, may well be divulged from the evidence of the Sonnets in ‘The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets’. Then, what of the following?
“The Fair Youth”
“The Dark Lady"
“The Only Begetter"
Some of the more predictable and even hackneyed aspects of the above list (so beloved of past-generation Shakespeare investigators!) are included in this long-overdue and entirely independent investigation. What if they detract from the full story? In general, and as a matter of policy, all findings have strictly relied on the following:
• The written evidence of the Sonnets themselves
• Historical evidence from the period in question
• Freedom from an exclusively ‘Shakespeare’ mindset
• Serious questioning of traditional myths and legends
It is believed that ‘theories’ become less and less relevant in the face of logical analysis of factual historical and literary records. The poems themselves are the richest source of all. There is, of-course, nothing wrong with ‘theories’ in lieu of more tangible information. Sometimes ‘facts’ can be very hard to establish after centuries of uncertain information. However, when we have such a rich semi-factual source as the Sonnets, with all their (sometimes hidden) written evidence of known events, then further reliance on ‘theories’ becomes even less necessary. Then, we must resort to the words, the magical words, which are all there simply to be read at face-value.
It is reiterated that this unbiased investigation has relied on extensive written evidence rather than on ‘theories’, as such. Extensive and persistent reading of all the Sonnets has been inescapable. Yes, even the more challenging ones! See Sonnet Group Nos. 122-125, for example. These are considered to be more than merely ‘different’. These obvious ‘differences’ have been critical to these findings.
Whilst, often copious, specialised and demanding: the ubiquitous academic speculations, in various versions of the Sonnets, have been duly studied, analysed and appreciated. Nevertheless, recourse to the words of the Sonnets themselves has always taken precedence. Regardless of scholarship, the Sonnets were privately written by 17th C. people for 17th C. people - they were clearly not written for ‘us’! Perhaps, they were even more personal than we like to think. We must simply let the privately written Sonnets speak to us. What do they say?
The Sonnets may once have been private (most of them clearly were) but still their voices are speaking to us after over 400 years. An awe-inspiring prospect but worth every second, minute and hour. Many Sonnets, of course, deal with the seasons and Time in general. Attention is again drawn to the intensely Metaphysical works of the incomparable and easily recognised Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke whose love for her wayward son is so comprehensively recorded. See Sonnet Nos. 1-17 at the very least.
These are plainly based on fact rather than fiction. Necessarily and inevitably, a certain amount of logic, insight, perception and commonsense has been invaluable throughout. Nevertheless, merely reading the extensive material available has enabled certain ‘patterns’ to emerge. Looking for similar patterns has been just as important as taking note of differences in syntax and grammar in general. Regrettably, the ‘jigsaw’ may never be completed but many pieces have neatly fallen into place: particularly with respect to the logical ‘Grouping’ of Sonnets in accordance with Style and Content alone.
Whilst this compelling study has remained substantially free from undue ‘speculations’, a certain amount of personal conjecture has unavoidably been generated by the unproven, controversial and illicit publication of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets in 1609. In summary, there are a number of logical and neglected reasons why an impartial commentator might propose that the majority of the Sonnets were clearly never intended for public distribution in 1609. This website is more about getting the message across, rather than any commercial or sensational aspects, by simply interpreting the Sonnets at face-value.
Reasons for not publishing these essentially private, family, female and often aristocratic poems clearly lie in their very obvious intimate style and content. There are countless examples of sensitive upperclass issues being wrongly attributed to William Shakespeare. For example, ‘Cavalier’ Sonnet Nos. 78 to 91 by William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (who was clearly ‘keeper’ of the Sonnets) plainly relate to his personal distress at the forced 1604 marriage of his cousin/lover Mary Sidney to a man called ‘Wroth’ as confirmed by the ubiquitous ‘Worth’ puns within these particular examples. Simply reading these specific Sonnets must surely indicate their intensely sensitive origins?
William Shakespeare is known to have written his ‘Sugr’ed’ Sonnets ‘for selected male friends’. We can very readily associate these masculine and often misogynistic Sonnets with Sonnet Nos. 127-154. So, these too were plainly not intended for wide circulation in 1609. Thus, few if any of the 154 Sonnets in question were ever intended for unauthorised publication in 1609 or at any other time. Once we acknowledge that these Sonnets were essentially private and confidential, then we can begin to comprehend just how inexcusable their illicit publication in 1609 actually was. Simply by reading them we soon see that most of them were strictly for private or family purposes. Similarly, the release of Mary Wroth’s later writings were deferred until the 1620’s, probably so as not to embarrass some very senior family members by intimate private revelations.
There are further reasons to doubt that William Shakespeare would have been willing to widely publish any number of the so-called ‘Shakespeare’ Sonnets, whether he wrote them or not, for some very obvious reasons. William Shakespeare maintained links with family and friends in Stratford-upon-Avon and indeed some of these close contacts also visited, or lived in, London from time to time. Under these circumstances he would have been most reluctant to admit in writing, whether true or not, that he was living a profligate sexual lifestyle, of whatever nature. He was even less likely to implicate his noble friend and patron, Pembroke, who ‘owned’ the Sonnets in any suspect, nefarious or implied sexual activities. This is clearly unthinkable, so why has this critical observation not been given serious consideration by previous contributors?
Some of these findings may well be at odds with those of past generations. Yet, it is clear that some early researchers were less likely to be ‘well-informed’. Therefore, by simple logic, they were more probably susceptible to pervasive and often dubious ancient folklore as we have seen throughout this venture. Whilst the accumulated evidence of the Sonnets is comprehensive, logical and realistic, there is clearly much further work to be done. For example, the possible identities of a number of ‘Unknown’ authors requires extensive academic, stylistic and historical investigation.
Contrary to the above remarks about ‘theories’: surely a certain amount of harmless speculation may be allowed at this stage? Two diverse candidates for contemporary 'Unknown' authorship could conceivably be: Lady Lucy Russel, Countess of Bedford, 1580-1627 ('Womanly' Sonnet No. 20?) and Robert Sidney, Earl of Leicester, 1563-1626 ('Political' Sonnet Nos. 107 & 122-125?). Then, it is entirely likely that the respected Sidney family tutor (a distinguished poet in his own right) Samuel Daniel, 1562-1619 may have written/influenced a number of other 'Shadow' Sonnets.
All of these Sonnets were probably 'owned' by Shakespeare's 'Fair Youth' Patron William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, 1580-1630. Some potential 'unknown' authors (such as, say, William Browne, 1590-1645) may never be identified but there is considerable scope for further research into the style and content of some very likely poets from the period in question. Meanwhile, the overwhelming evidence surrounding Mary Wroth, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, at the very least, are of primary importance.
The best part of this project has been the objective analysis of the actual letters, words, lines and verses of the Sonnets in general. Not always easy but often edifying and satisfying at the same time. Sometimes, it seemed to be the greatest of honours to be reading such wonderful masterworks in all their detail and all their glory. The worst part of this project has been trying to persuade conservative readers that much of what they were taught in all good faith has required a total rethink, readjustment and revision.
William Shakespeare is rightly esteemed as one of the greatest writers of all time and many have struggled to accept a wide-variety of seemingly ‘radical’ viewpoints concerning the Sonnets in particular. A proliferation of dubious myths and legends have certainly not been conducive to unbiased conclusions! In the final analysis, traditional readers (who have got this far), may perhaps see things in a totally different light? They may even realise just how misleading the longoutmoded ‘Fair Youth’ stories actually are. Yet, this freethinking exercise simply hinges on the logical evidence of the Sonnets rather than on questionable accumulations of inherited scholarship from the mists of time. I differ from more erudite commentators by favouring a very simple approach rather than a more scholarly train of thought.
It is hard to see why so many of the dubious but familiar old ‘Fair Youth’ legends, for example, have not been more rigorously questioned over so many years. Or has the ‘point of no return’ been reached long, long ago? What could be easier than merely accepting the status quo, no matter how unlikely, without too much uncomfortable examination? Then, why are the often-doubtful words of the legends still given precedence over the far more logical words of the Sonnets? Then, why are clearly concocted stories, dating from long-outmoded scholarship, still accepted as true when far simpler and infinitely more logical solutions can easily be interpreted from the evidence of the Sonnets themselves? Is it possible that over-adulation of the wonderful but all too human William Shakespeare ultimately gets in the way of reason, logic and truth? Presumably, in the face of vehement and partisan opposition, for so many beleaguered believers he could do no wrong!
There are a number of remaining issues regarding the huge accumulation of scholarly truths, half-truths and untruths surrounding the Sonnets. Some of the more bizarre traditional legends are clearly dubious, improbable or fanciful if we really look at them. For example, the highly questionable ‘commissioning’ of Sonnet Nos. 1-17 to William Shakespeare remains a point of serious concern. Yet, against all logical reasoning, this extremely unlikely scenario seems to be, unthinkingly, accepted as simple fact. Yet, all we need do is to simply read them for the truth to emerge. So, why is this? Why do we still believe everything we are told? Whilst I have consciously avoided socalled ‘theories’, in favour of the written evidence of the Sonnets themselves: I must admit to having some theories regarding our personal relationship with the great, unique and godlike William Shakespeare.
I believe that, together with the King James Bible of 1607, the late 16th C. and early 17th C. works of William Shakespeare have become progressively mystical, authoritative and overwhelmingly sacred. Thus, psychologically, the very mention of the name ‘Shakespeare’ immediately takes us up to a fantasy world where nothing seems impossible, unlikely or far-fetched. A suspension of belief takes place. This is ‘Shakespeare’ after all. Anything can happen. Then, without questioning reality: we start to believe that the ‘Fair Youth’ was lusted after by an older playwright who was supposedly free to say so in writing. Can this be right? Equally, perhaps, because we ‘do as we are told’, we take as verbatim that the Sonnets were all by one writer (William Shakespeare) when they are so clearly of diverse origins. All this before we are enjoined to believe some rather odd zodiacal connections by otherwise eminent Shakespeare scholars. It is believed that over-adulation of this remarkable genius has resulted in an almost hysterical obsession, which, at worst, takes little account of reality, common-sense or reason. However, as an independent 21st C. reviewer, that is purely my own viewpoint.
There are many more fascinating side-issues to be found in the pages of this truly independent and groundbreaking book. For example, unforeseen connections to Ben Jonson, who I believe may well be the so-called ‘Rival Poet’, may be of some especial interest. See Book and Sonnet No. 26. Readers are welcome to build on the, perhaps unexpected but convincing findings of this freely available study if they so wish. This preliminary website has been designed to promote the widest possible understanding of the book which encompasses many more aspects and significant findings, many of which are derived from the Sonnets themselves.
This companion website freely divulges some of the principal findings in the book. This is an intentional strategy. It is now believed that the simple truth should be of overriding importance to what is believed to be a dubious accumulation of long-outmoded assumptions of unlikely credibility. Much of this project seems to have been a case of ‘stating the obvious’. After all, the Sidney connections are well-recorded, logical and rational. Who can deny the ultimate role of the ‘Fair Youth’, who has long been associated with the Sonnets, albeit in such a bizarre and unlikely manner?
However, because most of us were taught differently, it is believed essential to share any relevant conclusions for further assessment in due course. This website indeed promotes some of the complex contents of the original book. Together with relevant keywords, I was able to analyse every single one of the 154 Sonnets in question and gained great pleasure in the process. This certainly helped to enhance my personal appreciation of these masterpieces in general. As an earnest writer, this simple objective made it all worthwhile! I learned to love many of the Sonnets but some of them, such as enigmatic No. 125, were both challenging and of historical interest at the same time but did not always make for easy reading. Finally, who can deny the touching motherly implications of Sonnet No. 33 and its very moving response in No. 34? Together with the truth, these compelling analyses and comparisons can surely only be a good thing?
How ‘exclusive’ is Shakespeare in general? There must be degrees of ‘exclusivity’ and ‘non-exclusivity’ surrounding this supreme literary figure. For example, the Plays are reasonably ‘exclusive’ in the sense of authorship being essentially attributable to William Shakespeare (despite being influenced by the works of others!). He made them his own and therefore somewhat ‘exclusive’. Then, how ‘exclusive’ are the clearly mixed-up Sonnets? In fact, how ‘excusive’ must this investigation be when Shakespeare actually belongs to us all?
Who can deny the extreme ‘differences’ between various Sonnets? Thus, the evidence of the words of the Sonnets themselves, as opposed to dubious myths and legends, has been placed on record for academic and non-academic readers alike. Anything to do with Shakespearean authorship is bound to be controversial and I certainly did not take on a project of this magnitude lightly. Therefore, whilst my well-researched findings were clearly written in all good faith, some inevitable inaccuracies may well have occurred - for which I sincerely apologise. All opinions are my own. Please note that “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from the Sonnets by Kenneth Farnol - 2023” is widely available on a number of independent publishing sites.
Thankyou…
11 APPENDIX - Sonnet No. 120
‘Unkind’ Sonnet No. 120 has been chosen as an example of my own interpretation of a typical ‘non-Shakespeare’ Sonnet as written by William (Fair Youth) Herbert, Earl of Pembroke to his cousin/lover Mary (Sidney) Wroth in 1604. Intriguingly, this intensely intimate Sonnet is based on a private upper-class heterosexual relationship and was self-evidently not intended for publication in 1609.
This is just one of 154 Sonnets which are personally interpreted in the book entitled - “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets – Evidence from the Sonnets” by Kenneth Farnol. These analyses differ from most ‘academic’ interpretations in favour of plain English commentary on the meaning, gender and authorship which seem most relevant to the style and content of each Sonnet in question.
SONNET No. 120
That 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.
For if you were by my unkindness shaken
As I by yours, you've pass'd a hell of time,
And I, a tyrant, have no leisure taken
To weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
O, that our night of woe might have remember'd
My deepest sense, how hard true sorrow hits,
And soon to you, as you to me, then tender'd
The humble salve which wounded bosoms fits!
But that your trespass now becomes a fee;
Mine ransoms yours, and yours must ransom me.
Style Genuinely Remorseful
Author William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke
Subject Sorrow
Key Words You/Me, Unkind, Transgression, Tyrant, Trespass, Ransom
SONNET No. 120 appears to be by an unusually apologetic William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and radically differs from the out and out bravado of Sonnet Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112, 117, and 121. This is a heartfelt and conciliatory poem to his beloved Mary Sidney Wroth in the manner of ‘Wroth/Worth’ Sonnet No. 87. Could Sonnet No. 120, too, be by both lovers before their forced separation to marry others in 1604? On balance; I think not. Although, on further reflection it does seem to equally apportion blame in what seems to have been a very turbulent, ostensibly secret and ill-balanced relationship.
Does Sonnet No. 120 indicate that Mary Sidney Wroth (as we might expect!) may not always have been quite as ‘compliant’ as Sonnet No. 40 suggests? Regardless of her own fixation for this older, attractive and eloquent young nobleman, to whom she is already related, we can be quite sure that she would sooner or later, have reacted to his overbearingly egotistical behaviour. It is all there in writing! We can only speculate on what form this rebellion might have taken.
Sonnet No. 120 certainly points to major ‘unkindness’s’ on both sides. It also suggests the probability that their clandestine affair (and private Sonnet writing activities) had been discovered; brought out into the open and resulted in inevitable recriminations, as further indicated by a subsequent Scandal as discussed in Appendix 1*. One wonders if the following lines might indicate 1) a long-overdue ‘row’ or 2) kissing and ‘making-up’: -
1) O, that our night of woe might have remember’d.
2) The humble salve which wounded bosoms fits!
This presumed later apology is world away from the earlier immature and extremely jealous, post-seduction rantings of the ‘Penshurst Elegy’. See Appendix 2* and Sonnet No. 117. Additionally, despite the written evidence of numerous quoted Sonnets and very significant Wroth/Worth references; this passionate (but forbidden) two-way heterosexual relationship seems to have been widely ignored in favour of the far less likely (and far less chronicled) ‘Fair Youth’ legends. Why? Sonnet Nos. 120 and 121 plainly show marginally different aspects of this tumultuous and historically accurate romantic relationship. This passionate love-story would certainly have made a good plot for a Shakespeare Play but as it intimately involved Shakespeare’s patron and was clearly not intended for publication, all we can do is simply read the substantive evidence of the illicitly printed 1609 Sonnets for ourselves.
Appendices 1* and 2* apply to the book - “The Diverse Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Evidence from the Sonnets” by Kenneth Farnol - 2023.
finis