Seeking the Truths of Shakespeare and his Sonnets
Q1: Were Shakespeare's sonnets written mainly in his own voice?
A1: With high probability, yes - for the following reasons. The poems are, to an unusual extent for their genre, expressed in the first person ("I") and addressed to the second ("you", "thou" or "thee"). Most of their content is congruent with abnormal Shakespearean history. The number and extent of the correspondences, their sheer peculiarity, and the absence of inconsistencies preclude anything other than a vanishing probability that this phenomenon is accidental. The inferred biography clears otherwise unresolved mysteries of publication (outlined at A3 below). It also provides the best answers for certain related puzzles - including some curiosities highlighted by Authorship sceptics (see A5 and A11 below).
Q2: Give an example of the match with “abnormal" history alleged at A1 above.
A2: The circumstances (see here) of Shakespeare's only recorded dedications of poetry - to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton - show that the author, a common poet without formal higher education and sometimes called Will: (i) dedicated his poetry to but one person; (ii) sought support and received encouragement from that person, a young, marriage-resistant, androgynous-looking lord; but (iii) then felt let down by a change of attitude and the aristocrat's preference of a rival; and so (iv) been impelled to direct reproaches and insults towards his social superior, the young noble; though thereafter (v) becoming moved to resume the cultivation of his dedicatee. Most of this development of an intimate relationship (distinguished above, in italic lettering) is unusual. Some is extraordinary. In its entirety it constitutes a history unique to Shakespeare and Wriothesley. Each detail of it also emerges, without inconsistency, from a straightforward, autobiographic reading of the same author's subsequently published sonnets (as do several other peculiar matches with Wriothesley's history - for more see here).
Q3: What are the “mysteries” of publication, referred to in A1 above?
A3: (i) The decision to publish, without explanation or excuse, some readily redactable homoerotic content, which was offensive to public morals; (ii) the banal, incongruous or repetitious themes in many of the sonnets – inconsistent with a fictional work intended to be marketable or to enhance the standing of the author; (iii) the absence of any formal dedication or accompanying commentary by an author who had abided by this custom in his earlier publications of poetry; (iv) the cryptic foreword of the original publisher, Thomas Thorpe, which, in introducing the poems, refers to an anonymous Mr WH as “the only begetter of these ensuing sonnets”; (v) the disjointed, accompanying presentation of a long poem, A Lover's Complaint, and its shortcomings in comparison to other Complaints of the period (including the author's Lucrece of 1594); (vi) the absence – unique in Shakespeare's works – of any reprint of the book during the span of anyone then alive.
Q4: How are those mysteries solved by the proposition of biography?
A4: They are solved as a whole by only one theory of biography, first mooted some 200 years ago – that which identifies Henry Wriothesley with the Friend, recipient and main addressee of poems subsequently published without the consent of poet or muse. The Earl's history and connections resolve the resultant conundrum that the publisher, Thorpe: (i) was able to obtain private poems in manuscript, some content of which would have been detrimental to the reputations of both Wriothesley and Shakespeare; yet (ii) was prepared to publish the sonnets without the few expurgations which would have defused the risks of defamation and of retaliation from the then powerful aristocrat. As significant is the developed theory's unique ability to predict or explain every detail of Thorpe's enigmatic foreword with resort to neither strain of parlance nor manipulation of the letters, “WH” (see more here). Incidentally, it allows reasonable explanations for the provenance of A Lover's Complaint (as a product of the rivalry for Wriothesley's attentions) and for the anomalies of its inclusion and presentation with the Sonnets (as brought out here).
Q5: What are the “related puzzles” of A1?
A5: The inspiration for, and probable identity of, the Rival Poet of the Sonnets; the strange sharing of characteristics and nomenclature by the two Rosalines of Shakespeare's plays (in Loves' Labours Lost and Romeo & Juliet) and the dark-haired woman apparently loved, lost and castigated in the Sonnets; the close resemblance of some content of Shakespeare's plays to the history of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (made much of by Oxfordian Authorship sceptics); the oddities of official actions concerning Christopher Marlowe during the days preceding his death and in its aftermath (made much of by Marlovian Authorship sceptics); the unusual knowledge displayed in As You Like It of the Marlowe inquest findings. For more detail, read the sections entitled The Rival Poet and The Dark Mistress within the article here.
Q6: Is there any evidence to suggest that the Sonnets are substantially fiction?
A6 : No. For example, in contrast to most of Shakespeare's plays and his two separately published long poems, there is nothing to suggest that the relationship stories perceptible in the Sonnets (rather than the poetic techniques) are based in the earlier works of others.
Q7: Does the inferred biography imply that Shakespeare was bisexual?
A7: It suggests that, at a time when the business of the London playhouses was disabled for prolonged periods (and when there were few welfare benefits), Shakespeare had a complex relationship with Wriothesley, the physical aspect of which was infrequent and ultimately unsatisfying. It also suggests that Shakespeare was strongly drawn to sex with women. On these bases, the poet appears to have been essentially heterosexual in his tastes, though (with the need to survive and the drive to prosper) prepared to do what he thought to be necessary to secure Wriothesley's patronage. Read more here.
Q8: Why is the probability of biography in the Sonnets not yet generally accepted?
A8: Earlier theories of biography in the Sonnets have suffered from
significant defects. Some of the evidence referred to above has been promulgated only since 2010. Those experts on whom the public rely in
this arena tend to be English Literature scholars (not historians): more interested (and qualified) in the constitution, transmission and interpretation of the works than in their author. For some decades now, this body
has applied (and taught) a doctrine of resistance to even a contemplation of biography in the Sonnets (though there
is no evidence that these are primarily fiction). One reason for this stance may be the unsavoury (to many) implications about the author which
would follow. Others might be the grounding of such scholars in the study of superficially comparable works, almost entirely fictional - and/or restrictions (of interpretive freedom) associated by them with biography. For more food for thought on these matters, see "Related Issues" below.
Q9: What is the recently promulgated evidence referred to above?
A9: (i) Much of that outlined in Answers 2, 4 and 5 above; (ii) some aspects of writings associated with Thomas Nashe (a contemporary of Shakespeare), which illuminate his reference to Wriothesley's involvement in triangular relationships with poets; (iii) rational interpretations of Sonnets 62, 63, 71-74, 104, 108, which rebut opinion that these conflict with the notion of a Shakespeare-Wriothesley biography; (iv) other previously unremarked correlations of the Sonnets with that history. Further detail of these developments may be found via The Biography in Shakespeare's Sonnets.
Q10: Probability assessments are not hard facts. Why should we pay attention to them?
A11: In reality, probability assessments underlie most of that which we deem
to be truth. For example, Shakespeare's name on an
original book cover (accepted by most as hard evidence) is no guarantee that he was author of its contents - as
demonstrated by various editions of The Passionate Pilgrim and
some related surviving evidence. However, with proper application,
probability assessments provide high confidence in various Shakespearean issues: such as the nature of his early schooling, the contributions to his plays by other authors and the form of his literary sources (for
none of which is there direct evidence). They also underpin the earliest evidence of his move to London for a career there as an author (through the identification of
him with "Shake-scene", the upstart, common player without university
education, whose competitive authorial skills so upset Robert Greene in
1592). Since it is inferred using identical methodology and comparable discipline (including respect of Occam), the presence of significant autobiography in the Sonnets is no more dismissable than much of what is already scholastically accepted of Shakespeare's history.
Q11: Do the above developments reinforce Shakespeare's authorship of works credited to him?
A11: Yes. The biography inferred provides the best explanations for certain anomalies or phenomena which are relied upon by Marlovians or Oxfordians, and which are not well dealt with by orthodox Stratfordianism. It also allows a reasonable theory for other oddities pointed to by Baconians. The relevant peculiarities are included in a list of the commonly quoted aspersions of Authorship sceptics at Probate of Will. Their resolution by, or consistency with, the biography in the Sonnets strengthens the evidence of the latter for authorship by William Shakspere of Stratford, and illuminates other aspects of his history.
The zeitgeist of English Literature academe (when faced with the prospect of biography in the Sonnets - see A8 above) may be glimpsed in various aspects of the following interactions. By way of background, I was participating in a protracted online debate during April 2014, kindly hosted and recorded by the SHAKSPER forum (an institution dominated by English Literature academia). My argument (organized to reflect matters raised earlier in the debate) was summarized therein as follows:
Commentary invited: Input or
further queries are welcome, via Contact.
Hidden Life >