Shake-speare’s Sonnets: Fiction or Autobiography?
Brighton, MA
There are two schools of thought in regards to Shakespeare’s Sonnets. The first school, among the minority, holds that the Sonnets were written as something of a “literary exercise.” The second school, representing the majority, contests that the Sonnets are autobiographical in nature. The following first examines the minority view. The popular view follows in which both the Stratfordian and Oxfordian interpretations are examined. Lastly, the identity of the dark lady is argued.
The Minority View
The only author, known to the present writer, who holds that the sonnets are not autobiographical in nature is James Shapiro. His comments can be viewed in his book, Contested Will. For those who recall reading the sonnets in community college or university, in the US or the UK, as does the present author, the idea of autobiography was never raised. After reading them for years, one comes to the conclusion that Orthodox scholars do not wish to open the can of worms that an autobiographical reading demands.
The Popular View
The popular view, among Stratfordians, Baconians, and Oxfordians, is that the sonnets are autobiographical in nature.
“In the case of the sonnets, the rawness and self-exposure evident in them, the explicitness about sex, is unbelievable as a mere literary game. Most readers would surely agree that they relate to real life experience: if they are not autobiographical, it is hard to imagine what is.” (Wood 177)
“The idea that these poems are fantastic dramatic inventions with mystic meanings we feel to be a violation of all normal probabilities and precedents. Accepting them, therefore, as autobiographical, our next step must be to see how these poems, as a whole, stand related to the authorship theory we are now advancing" (Looney 369)
Charlton Ogburn Jr. said it best,
“How can anyone who knows anything about literary creativity read the sonnets and think that they’re not autobiographical?”
John Kerrigan, in his introduction to The Sonnets and A Lover’s Complaint stated,
“If the poems were lived through, passed about, and then revised before, if not for publication in 1609, what kind of relationship do they finally have with life? If seventeenth century history helps us understand Sonnet 107, with its disclosure of personal ‘fears’ through public ones, might not biographical inquiry solve the ‘mystery’ of Shakespeare’s Sonnets?”
(Kerrigan xv)
“Most of the poems were written between the late 1590s and 1604.” (Wood 178).
Edward De Vere died in 1604.
It is sad that some collections of the sonnets do not include the entire dedication. There is much to be learned from it:
TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
THESE INSVING SONNETS
MR. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
AND THAT ETERNITIE
PROMISED BY
OUR EVER-LIVING POET
WISHETH
THE WELL-WISHING
ADVENTURER IN
SETTING
FORTH
T.T. (Shakespeare 1225)
The sonnets are addressed to Mr. W. H. Numerous candidates have been put forth. Common sense, however, dictates that the initials stand for Wriothesley, Henry. One need only to read the dedications in Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.
The author of the work is referred to as “our ever-living poet.”
Elizabeth Price states,
“ ‘Ever-living’ means a dead person.”
This is problematic, because in 1609, when the sonnets were first published, William Shakspere was very much alive. Edward De Vere, on the other hand, died in 1604.
The first 126 sonnets are encouraging a young man to marry. There is agreement among some Stratfordians and Oxfordians that these 126 sonnets are directed directly at Southampton. In his book, Shakespeare, Michael Wood states,
“…it might be conjectured that Shakespeare was invited to Wilton by Mary Herbert to write poems urging her son to marry after, earlier in that year, he had rejected the proposed marriage to a woman named Bridget De Vere.” ( Wood 181–2)
This quote was removed from the later edition of the book as it was from the BBC documentary.
Thomas Looney took into account the time of the Sonnets composition:
“Then just at the time when the sonnets were being written urging Southampton to marry, he was actually being urged into a marriage with a daughter of the Earl of Oxford" (Looney 378).
When reading the first set, it is fascinating to imagine Oxford writing them, encouraging his fellow earl to marry and have children with his daughter:
I.
From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty’s rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decease,
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed’st thy light’s flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel.
Thou that art now the world’s fresh ornament,
And only herald to the gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
And, tender churl, makest waste in niggarding.
Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
To eat the world’s due, by the grave and thee.
Due to the erotic nature of the sonnets, one can understand why De Vere published them under the name William Shake-speare.
Michael Wood, convinced Stratfordian that he claims to be, also holds the sonnets to be autobiographical. William Shakspere’s son, Hamnet, died when he was eleven. He cites this as raw material for Sonnet 33, concluding,
“You don’t get more autobiographical than that.”
Coincidentally, yet again, Oxford’s only son also died.
33.
Full many a glorious morning have I seen
Flatter the mountain-tops with sovereign eye,
Kissing with golden face the meadows green,
Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy;
Anon permit the basest clouds to ride
With ugly rack on his celestial face,
And from the forlorn world his visage hide,
Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace:
Even so my sun one early morn did shine
With all-triumphant splendour on my brow;
But, out, alack! he was but one hour mine,
The region cloud hath maskt him from me now.
Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth;
Suns of the world may stain when heaven’s sun staineth.
The Death of Elizabeth I
There is no universally acknowledged eulogy for the death of Queen Elizabeth coming from the pen of Shakespeare. In Shakespeare Identified, however, Looney made the claim that Sonnet 125 was in her honor.
As Lord Great Chamberlain he officiated near the person of James I at his coronation, just as, doubtless, when a boy, he had witnessed his father officiating at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. Although his officiating at Elizabeth’s funeral is not mentioned so explicitly as the part he took at the coronation of James, it is natural to assume that he would be there. It is just possible that this ceremony is directly referred to in sonnet 125:
(Looney 189)
Were’t aught to me I bore the canopy,
With my extern the outward honoring,
Or laid great bases for eternity,
Which proves more short than waste or ruining?
Have I not seen dwellers on form and favor
Lose all and more by paying too much rent,For compound sweet forgoing simple savor,
Pitiful thrivers, in their gazing spent?
No, let me be obsequious in the heart,
And take thou my oblation, poor but free,
Which is not mixed with seconds, knows no art
But mutual render, only me for thee.Hence, thou suborned informer! A true soul
When most impeached stands least in the control.
(Shakespeare 127)
It is hard to imagine a commoner being given the same honor during such a procession.
The Will Sonnets
The current writer recalls reading the Will sonnets in high school. The teacher, Mrs. Riker, thought it was amusing that William Shakespeare had a sense of humor. A Stratfordian once stated,
“Well, the author tells us his name in these sonnets.”
136
If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy will,
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there.
Thus far for love my love-suit, sweet, fulfill.
Will will fulfill the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckoned none.
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy store’s account I one must be.
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something, sweet, to thee.
Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
And then thou lovest me, for my name is Will.
(Folger)
Another way of looking at it, however, is that the author is teasing the reader with his nom de plume. This makes sense with the erotic nature of the work. Even Jane Austen originally published under a nom de plume in an era that was far safer to do so.
The Dark Lady
Michael Wood made the case that the dark lady was Emilia Lanier; however, once again he did not produce any documentation showing that they actually knew each other.
Once again, the Oxfordian view that the dark lady is Anne Vavasour is much stronger. There is extant documentation of their relationship. The following is but one example:
In March 1581 Anne Vavasour, a lady-in-waiting, gave birth to a boy, accusing Oxford of seducing her. Accoding to Brooks, she was the daughter of Henry Vavasour of Copmanthorpe in Yorkshire, by Margaret, daugher of Henry Knyvet, and in 1580 she had been appointed a Lady of the Bedchamber…The Queen imprisoned the mother and father in the Tower for a time, and a four-year feud ensued between Oxford and the girl’s relatives, the Knyvet clan (Johnson 155–6)
The above can be viewed as raw material for Sonnet 147:
My love is a fever, longing still
For that which longer nurseth the disease,
Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill,
Th’uncertain sickly appetite to please.
My reason, the physician to my love,
Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
Hath left me, and I desperate now approve
Desire is death, which physic did except.
Past cure I am, now reason is past care,
And frantic-mad with evermore unrest;
My thoughts and my discourse as madmen’s are,
At random from the ruth, vainly expressed:
For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as hell, as dark as night. (Shakespeare 149)
Conclusion
The popular consensus is that the sonnets are autobiographical in nature. Despite this, there is no evidence that the man from Stratford ever met the Earl of of Southampton or Lanier. There is documented evidence that De Vere knew Southampton and Anne Vavasour. It must also be taken into account that the “Shakespearean Form” of the sonnets is an invention of Oxford. As with Hamlet, the reading of the sonnets from an Oxfordian viewpoint makes them much more potent.
Works Cited
Johnson, Philip. John Lyly’s Endimion and William Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing in Great Oxford: Essays in the Life of Edward De Vere. De Vere Society, 2004. Print.
Kerrigan, John and Shakespeare, William. Introduction from The Sonnets and A Lover’s Complaint. Penguin Books, 2009. Print.
Looney, Thomas. Shakespeare Identified. Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1920. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works. Barnes and Noble, 2015. Print.
Wood, Michael. Shakespeare. Basic Books, 2003. Print
