Original Text

Modern Text

TO. THE. ONLY. BEGETTER. OF.

THESE. ENSUING. SONNETS.
Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESS.
AND. THAT. ETERNITY.
PROMISED.
BY.
OUR. EVER-LASTING. POET.
WISHETH.
THE. WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTURER. IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.
T.T.
Note on the Dedication
In publishing these sonnets, the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, wishes the man who inspired them, Mr. W. H., to
receive the happiness and eternal fame promised him by the immortal poet who wrote them.

Sonnet 1
We want the most beautiful people to have children, so their beauty will be preserved foreverwhen the parent
dies, the child he leaves behind will remind us of his beauty. But you, in love with your own pretty eyes, are letting
your beauty burn itself out. Youre starving the world of your beauty rather than spreading the wealth around.
Youre acting like your own worst enemy! Right now youre the best-looking thing in the world, the only person as
beautiful as springtime. But your beauty is like a new bud, and youre letting it die before it can develop and bring
you true happiness. Youre a young man, but you act like an old miseryoure wasting your beauty by hoarding it
and keeping it to yourself! Take pity on the rest of us, or this is how youll be remembered: as the greedy pig who
hogged his own beauty and took it with him to the grave.

Sonnet 2
When forty years have gone by and carved deep wrinkles in your forehead, your youthful beauty, which everyone
likes to look at now, will be worth little. Then, when someone asks you where all your beauty isall the treasure of
your virile youthif you were to say that its all there in your withered face and sunken eyes, that would be an all-
consuming shame and nothing to be proud of. Youd have a much better excuse if, decades from now, you could say
you spent your beauty and youth raising a child. If someone were to ask you why you looked so old, you could say,
The effort I spent raising this beautiful child explains the sorry old state Im inand meanwhile your childs
beauty would be a new incarnation of your own! Having a beautiful child would be like being born again in old age,
with the blood that flows coldly in your old veins becoming warm again in his.

Sonnet 3

Modern Text
Look in your mirror and tell the face you see that its time to father a child. Your face is fresh and healthy now, but
if you dont reproduce it, youll be cheating the world and cursing a woman who would happily be your childs
mother. After all, do you think theres a woman out there so beautiful that shed refuse to have your child? And
what man would be so foolish as to allow his own self-absorption to stop himself from fathering children? You are
like a mirror to your own mother, and when she looks at you she can gaze back at the lovely springtime of her
youth. In the same way, when you are old and wrinkled, youll be able to look at your child and see yourself in
1
your prime. But if you choose not to have a child to remember you, youll die alone and leave no memory of your
own image.

Sonnet 4
You wasteful lovely person, why are you spending all of your beauty on yourself? Nature doesnt give us anything;
she only lends us the gifts we get at birth, and, being generous herself, she lends the most to people who are
generous themselves. So, you beautiful miser, why do you abuse the bountiful gifts that were given to you to share
with others? Why do you insist on being such a bad investor, using up the immense treasure you have to offer the
world but unable to support yourself or preserve your memory? By only having dealings with yourself, youre
cheating yourself out of the best part of yourself. Then how, when nature says its time for you to go, will you be
able to give an acceptable account of how you spent your time and beauty? Your unused beauty will have to be
buried with you. But if you used that beauty now, it would stay behind once you were gone and preserve your
legacy.

Sonnet 5
The same process that over time shaped your wonderful face, so that now everybody loves to look at you, will
eventually destroy that face, making ugly what is now surpassingly beautiful. For never-resting Time takes summer
by the hand, leads him into horrifying winter, and destroys him therefreezing his sap, removing his full leaves,
covering up his beauty with snow, and turning everything bare. If we didnt have perfume distilled from summer
flowers to keep in a jar, the effects of summer would vanish at the end of the season. Without perfume, wed have
no way of remembering the summer itself or its beauty. But the flowers used to make perfume lose only their
outward beauty when winter comes; their beautiful scent lives on sweetly.

Sonnet 6
(Continuing from Sonnet 5) So dont let wintry old age destroy your summer beauty before your essence has been
preserved. Make some woman pregnant and pass on your beauty before it dies with you. Its unfair to charge
exorbitant interest on a loan. But if you lend a woman your body, shell be only too happy to pay you back with a
child. Having a childmaking another version of yourselfwill make you happy. Having ten children will make
you ten times as happy. What power would death have over you if you left children behind to keep your legacy
alive? Dont be willful and selfishyoure much too beautiful to be conquered by death, with nothing left of you
but a corpse devoured by worms.

Sonnet 7
When the gracious light of the sun rises in the east, each person on earth pays homage to it by gazing upon all its
sacred majesty. And even at noon, once the sun has climbed the steep path to the top of the sky, it still looks like a
strong young man in his prime and human beings still adore its beauty, watching it pass on its way like a golden
king making a pilgrimage. But when the sun grows weary and falls from its highest point, it reels like an old man,
and the people who once looked up at it so dutifully stop looking and turn the other way. In the same way, you,
wasting your sexual energy in the prime of your life, will die alone and unloved unless you father a son.

Sonnet 8
Youre like music to listen to, so why does listening to music make you sad? Delightful and joyful things should
complement one another. So why do you love things that make you unhappy and enjoy things that are bad for you?
If music played well and in tune sounds bad to you, its because that music is rebuking you for not playing your
own partnot making your own harmonyby getting married and having children. Notice how the sound of two
strings vibrating together in harmony is like a father and child and happy mother, who all sing one pleasing note
together. Though their music has no words, the unity of their voices sings this warning to you: If you stay single,
youll be a childless nobody.

2
Shakespeare's sonnets, are simply a collection of poems in sonnet form written by William Shakespeare that deal
with such themes as time, love, beauty and mutability. They were probably written over a period of several years.
All 154 poems appeared in a 1609 collection, entitled SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS, comprising 152 previously
unpublished sonnets and two (numbers 138 and 144) that had previously been published in a 1599 miscellany
entitled The Passionate Pilgrim.

The first 17 sonnets are written to a young man, urging him to marry and have children,[1] thereby passing down his
beauty to the next generation. These are called the procreation sonnets. Most of them, 18-126, are addressed to a
young man expressing the poet's love for him. Sonnets 127-152 are written to the poet's mistress expressing his
strong love for her. The final two sonnets, 153-154, are allegorical. The final thirty or so sonnets are written about a
number of issues, such as the young man's infidelity with the poet's mistress, self-resolution to control his own lust,
beleaguered criticism of the world, etc.

The Sonnets were published under conditions that have become unclear to history. Although the works were written
by Shakespeare, it is not known if the publisher, believed to be Thomas Thorpe,[2] used an authorized manuscript
from him, or an unauthorized copy. Also, there is a mysterious dedication at the beginning of the text wherein a
certain "Mr. W.H." is described by the publisher as "the onlie begetter" of the poems, but it is not known who this
man was. In addition, several aspects of The Sonnets have been noted in the ongoing Shakespeare authorship
question.

Dedication to Mr. W.H.

The only edition of the sonnets published in Shakespeare's lifetime, the 1609 Quarto, is dedicated to one "Mr.
W.H.". The reality, identity and age of this person remain a mystery and have caused a great deal of speculation.

The dedication in full reads:

TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
THESE.INSUING.SONNETS.
Mr.W.H. ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.
BY.
OUR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
WISHETH.
THE.WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTURER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.

T.T
While it is generally believed that 'T.T.' stands for the publisher, Thomas Thorpe,[3] it is not certain whether Thorpe,
Shakespeare, or another editor wrote the dedication. The capital letters and periods following each word were
probably intended to resemble an Ancient Roman inscription, thereby giving a sense of eternity and magnitude to
the sonnets. In the sonnets, Shakespeare often declares that the sonnets will outlast such earthly things as stone
monuments and inscriptions.[4] Sonnet 55 states,

Not marble, nor the gilded monuments

Of princes shall outlive this pow'rful rhyme,
3
126 of Shakespeare's sonnets are addressed to a young man (often called the "Fair Youth"). Broadly speaking, there
are two branches of theories concerning the identity of Mr. W.H.[citation needed]: those that take him to be identical to the
youth, and those that assert him to be a separate person.

Structure

The sonnets are almost all constructed from three four-line stanzas (called quatrains) and a final couplet composed
in iambic pentameter[12] (a meter used extensively in Shakespeare's plays) with the rhyme scheme abab cdcd efef gg
(this form is now known as the Shakespearean sonnet). The only exceptions are Sonnets 99, 126, and 145. Number
99 has fifteen lines. Number 126 consists of six couplets, and two blank lines marked with italic brackets; 145 is in
iambic tetrameters, not pentameters. Often, the beginning of the third quatrain marks the volta ("turn"), or the line
in which the mood of the poem shifts, and the poet expresses a revelation or epiphany.

There is another variation on the standard English structure, found for example in sonnet 29. The normal rhyme
scheme is changed by repeating the b of quatrain one in quatrain three where the f should be. This leaves the sonnet
distinct between both Shakespearean and Spenserian styles.

When in disgrace with fortune and mens eyes

I all alone beweep my outcast state,

And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featurd like him, like him with friends possessd,
Desiring this mans art, and that mans scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee,and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heavens gate;
For thy sweet love rememberd such wealth
brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
Whether the author intended to step over the boundaries of the standard rhyme scheme will always be in question.
Some, like Sir Denis Bray, find the repetition of the words and rhymes to be a "serious technical blemish",[13] while
others, like Kenneth Muir, think "the double use of 'state' as a rhyme may be justified, in order to bring out the stark
contrast between the Poet's apparently outcast state and the state of joy described in the third quatrain." [14] Given
that this is the only sonnet in the collection that follows this pattern, its hard to say if it was purposely done. But
most of the poets at the time were well educated; "schooled to be sensitive to variations in sounds and word order
that strike us today as remarkably, perhaps even excessively, subtle." [15] Shakespeare must have been well aware of
this subtle change to the firm structure of the English sonnets.

[edit] Characters

Readers of the sonnets today commonly refer to these characters as the Fair Youth, the Rival Poet, and the Dark
Lady. The narrator expresses admiration for the Fair Youth's beauty, and later has an affair with the Dark Lady. It is
not known whether the poems and their characters are fiction or autobiographical. If they are autobiographical, the
identities of the characters are open to debate. Various scholars, most notably A. L. Rowse, have attempted to
identify the characters with historical individuals.[citation needed]
4
[edit] Fair Youth

Main article: Shakespeare's sexuality

Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton at 21. Shakespeare's patron, and one candidate for the "Fair Youth" of
the sonnets.

The 'Fair Youth' is an unnamed young man to whom sonnets 1-126 are addressed. The poet writes of the young man
in romantic and loving language, a fact which has led several commentators to suggest a homosexual relationship
between them, while others read it as platonic love, or even as the love of a father for his son.

The earliest poems in the collection do not imply a close personal relationship; instead, they recommend the
benefits of marriage and children. With the famous sonnet 18 ("Shall I compare thee to a summer's day") the tone
changes dramatically towards romantic intimacy. Sonnet 20 explicitly laments that the young man is not a woman.
Most of the subsequent sonnets describe the ups and downs of the relationship, culminating with an affair between
the poet and the Dark Lady. The relationship seems to end when the Fair Youth succumbs to the Lady's charms.

There have been many attempts to identify the Friend. Shakespeare's one-time patron, the Henry Wriothesley, 3rd
Earl of Southampton is the most commonly suggested candidate,[citation needed] although Shakespeare's later patron,
William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, has recently become popular [1]. Both claims have much to do with the
dedication of the sonnets to 'Mr. W.H.', "the only begetter of these ensuing sonnets": the initials could apply to
either Earl. However, while Shakespeare's language often seems to imply that the 'friend' is of higher social status
than himself, this may not be the case. The apparent references to the poet's inferiority may simply be part of the
rhetoric of romantic submission. An alternative theory, most famously espoused by Oscar Wilde's short story 'The
Portrait of Mr. W.H.' notes a series of puns that may suggest the sonnets are written to a boy actor called William
Hughes; however, Wilde's story acknowledges that there is no evidence for such a person's existence. Samuel Butler
believed that the friend was a seaman, and recently Joseph Pequigney ('Such Is My love') an unknown commoner.

[edit] The Dark Lady

Sonnets 127-152 are addressed to a woman commonly known as the 'Dark Lady' because her hair is said to be black
and her skin "dun". These sonnets are explicitly sexual in character, in contrast to those written to the "Fair Youth".
It is implied that the speaker of the sonnets and the Lady had a passionate affair, but that she was unfaithful,
perhaps with the "Fair Youth". The poet self-deprecatingly describes himself as balding and middle-aged at the time
of writing.

Many attempts have been made to identify the "Dark Lady" with historical personalities, such as Mary Fitton or the
poet Emilia Lanier, who was Rowse's favoured candidate, though neither lady fits the author's descriptions.[citation
needed]
She has also been identified with Elizabeth Wriothesley, Countess of Southampton.[2]

Some readers have suggested that the reference to her "dun" (a dull, grayish, brown color) skin and "black
wires...on her head" in Sonnet 130 suggests that she was of African descent (as imagined in Anthony Burgess's
novel about Shakespeare, Nothing Like the Sun). Others, however, maintain that the Dark Lady is merely a fictional
character who never really existed in real life; they suggest that the "darkness" of the lady is not intended literally,
but rather represents the "dark" forces of physical lust as opposed to the ideal Platonic love associated with the
"Fair Youth". Some have identified her with Hermia in A Midsummer Nights Dream, who is also described as
dark-haired.

William Wordsworth was unimpressed by these sonnets. He wrote that

5
These sonnets, beginning at 127, to his Mistress, are worse than a puzzle-peg. They are abominably harsh, obscure
& worthless. The others are for the most part much better, have many fine lines, very fine lines & passages. They
are also in many places warm with passion. Their chief faults, and heavy ones they are, are sameness, tediousness,
quaintness, & elaborate obscurity.

[edit] The Rival Poet

Main article: Rival Poet

The Rival Poet's identity has always remained a mystery, though there is a general consensus that the two most
likely candidates are Christopher Marlowe and George Chapman. However, there is no hard evidence that the
character had a real-life counterpart. The Poet sees the Rival as competition for fame and patronage. The sonnets
most commonly identified as The Rival Poet group exist within the Fair Youth series in sonnets 7886.[16]

[edit] Themes

One interpretation is that Shakespeare's Sonnets are in part a pastiche or parody of the three centuries-long tradition
of Petrarchan love sonnets; in them, Shakespeare consciously inverts conventional gender roles as delineated in
Petrarchan sonnets to create a more complex and potentially troubling depiction of human love.[17] Shakespeare also
violated many sonnet rules which had been strictly obeyed by his fellow poets: he speaks on human evils that do
not have to do with love (66), he comments on political events (124), he makes fun of love (128), he parodies
beauty (130), he plays with gender roles (20), he speaks openly about sex (129) and even introduces witty
pornography (151).

[edit] Legacy

Coming as they do at the end of conventional Petrarchan sonneteering, Shakespeare's sonnets can also be seen as a
prototype, or even the beginning, of a new kind of 'modern' love poetry. During the eighteenth century, their
reputation in England was relatively low; as late as 1805, The Critical Review could still credit Milton with the
perfection of the English sonnet. As part of the renewed interest in Shakespeare's original work that accompanied
Romanticism, the sonnets rose steadily in reputation during the nineteenth century.[18]

The outstanding cross-cultural importance and influence of the sonnets is demonstrated by the large number of
translations that have been made of them. To date in the German-speaking countries alone, there have been 70
complete translations since 1784. There is no major written language into which the sonnets have not been
translated, including Latin,[19] Turkish, Japanese, Esperanto,[20] and even Klingon.[21]

The sonnets are often referenced in popular culture. For example in a 2007 episode of Doctor Who, entitled The
Shakespeare Code, Shakespeare began a good-bye to Martha Jones in the form of Sonnet 18, referring to her as his
dark lady. This is intended to indicate that Martha is the famed Dark Lady from these sonnets.

[edit] Shakespeare authorship question

Several aspects of The Sonnets have been noted in the ongoing Shakespeare authorship question: The dedication
refers to the poet as "Ever-Living", a phrase which has helped fuel the authorship debate due to its use as an epithet
for the deceased (Shakespeare himself used the phrase in this way in Henry VI, part 1 (IV, iii, 51-2) describing the
dead Henry V as [t]hat ever-living man of memory). Authorship proponents believe this phrase indicates that the
real author of the sonnets was dead by 1609, whereas Shakespeare of Stratford lived until 1616.[22]Adding further to
the authorship debate, Shakespeare's name is hyphenated on the title page and on the top of every other page in the
book. Authorship proponents believe that this hyphenation was used to indicate a pseudonym.[23]

6
In The De Vere Code[24], a recently published book by English actor Jonathan Bond, the author claims that the 30-
word dedication to the original publication of Shakespeare's Sonnets contains six simple encryptions which
conclusively establish Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as the author of the poems. The encryptions also settle
the question of the identity of "the Fair Youth" as Henry Wriothesley and contain striking references to the sonnets
themselves and de Vere's relationship to Sir Philip Sidney and Ben Jonson.

SHAKE-SPEARES

SONNETS

Approximate Facsimile of Title page of Shakespeares Sonnets.

as an item of great moment. Yet were it not for the publication of this work, there would be extant only two of
Shakespeares sonnets, 138 and 144, neither of which are thought to be among his best and most memorable. We
therefore are indebted to the publisher of this book for bringing to light an incomparable series of poems which has
no equal in world literature. It has been claimed that the work is a pirated edition, and that Thomas Thorpe, the
publisher, obtained his copy by theft or subterfuge. If that is so, then even as a pirate or a thief we still owe him a
debt of gratitude, for it is not at all evident that the poems would otherwise have been published. The First Folio
edition of Shakespeares plays, published by Heminge and Condell in 1623, seven years after Shakespeares death,
did not include his poems. As fellow actors and theatre owners, they were mainly interested in his plays, and the
narrative poems had already been printed in Shakespeares lifetime. There was therefore no need to add anything
extra or extraneous to the First Folio, which was in itself a sufficiently costly undertaking.

We rely entirely upon the 1609 Quarto edition published by Thomas Thorpe for our knowledge of the sonnets. In
those days there were no copyright laws to protect authors. They were dependent upon their own wits and the
assistance of entrepreneurs in the printing world, members of the Stationers Company, for getting their works
published and for obtaining any income from those works. Such laws as existed were used to protect the Stationers
from predation by other publishers.

There is no reason to suppose that Shakespeare resolved that his sonnets should not be published. It would indeed
be strange if the man who could write

Nor shall death brag thou wanderest in his shade

W hen in eternal lines to time thou growest. 18.11-12.

and

Your monument shall be my gentle verse,

Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read,
And tongues to be your being shall rehearse
When all the breathers of this world are dead; 81. 9-12.

7
should consider it a matter of indifference if those lines were never seen or published or read and were in no sense
eternal. Of course we may ascribe such sentiments to the exaggerated hyperbole of the sonnet form, a poets rage,
and stretched metre of an antique song, and it has been fashionable from the Romantic period onwards to think of
Shakespeare as the sublime inspired poet writing immortal lines, but not in the least concerned whether his words
should survive his own demise. Yet there is ample evidence to show that he was not such a man, that he was very
practical, concerned with establishing his position in society, and concerned that his family name should continue
after his death. His will alone is enough to establish this point, with its detailed conditional bestowal of assets down
to the possible sixth and seventh sons of his daughter Susannah and to their heirs.

Shakespeare clearly was not averse to having his works published. His Venus and Adonis ran through many
editions. His narrative poem The Rape of Lucrece he also published, with a fulsome dedication to the Earl of
Southampton. The fact that many of his plays were not published in his lifetime may have many explanations.
They were among the most popular plays of the period and were frequently performed, so that they had a wide
audience already. Publication might have diluted this audience, or indeed made the works available to rival
companies. The author was perhaps too busy to arrange the awkward business of publication. It is always possible
that he did contemplate a complete edition of his works, such as that which Ben Jonson managed to achieve, but
perhaps work and illness and an untimely death prevented him. These are of course all conjectures, but we should
not take the absence of evidence about Shakespeares publishing intentions to be indicative that he did not wish to
have his Sonnets published. The main basis for the claim that the work was pirated has always been that there is
something unsavoury in the subject matter of the poems. Nearly three quarters of the 154 sonnets are addressed to
a man. The remaining ones mostly describe rather lurid episodes in his infatuation for a dark woman, the so called
dark lady of the sonnets. The final poem in the book, A Lovers Complaint, has in the past been more or less
sidelined and not discussed in relation to the sonnets at all.

However, setting aside the supposedly unsavoury nature of the work, (which I shall deal with later), there is strong
internal evidence that the Sonnets were carefully prepared for publication. In the first place there is the tripartite
division of the work. The first group of sonnets, 1 - 126 are addressed to a man. They are sonnets mostly of pure
love and devotion, marred by the fact that the beloved fair youth does not correspond to the ideal which the poet has
created of love and the loved object, and also marred by the poets occasional failure to live up to the ideal of love
as he envisages it. The second group, 127 152, describes his love, or perhaps infatuation for his dark mistress.
The love shown in these poems is tainted and distorted by sexual attraction. The poet laments that his mistress has
such power over him. Two Anacreontic sonnets conclude the sequence. Finally the work is rounded off by a poem
describing love betrayed, A Lovers Complaint. In this case it is a young womans love for a man which is
portrayed, but the woman is cruelly seduced and abandoned by the man, whose sole purpose from the outset was
sexual conquest.

This division into three main parts corresponds with many other sonnet sequences published in the period, such as
Daniels Delia, Lodges Phillis and Spensers Amoretti. It may seem strange to modern taste, but it was not
unusual at the time. In any case there is a notable harmonious relationship between the three sections, characterised
broadly by their themes, as follows. Pure love:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. 116. 1-2.

Tainted love:

When my love swears that she is made of truth

I do believe her though I know she lies. 138. 1-2.

8
Love betrayed but redeemed by sacrifice:

Ay me! I fell, and yet do question make

What I would do again for such a sake. LC. 321-2.

Or we may see it as depicting and contrasting love between a man and a man, a man and a woman, a woman and a
man.

There are other strands woven into the poems, particularly the religious references, which occur so frequently that
they cannot be ignored, and which suggest that we could interpret them also on a secondary or tertiary level. The
three sections could divide into, for example, the true church, the false harlot church, the church betrayed or
betraying. These are not rigid categories, but they are suggested by the language of the sonnets, as I hope to show
subsequently, and they do indicate a high degree of thought and preparation in the organisation of the sequence.

Aside from this there is also to be considered the placing of individual sonnets in significant positions in the
sequence, such as 1, the carefully composed introductory sonnet; 12 - the twelve hours of the day; 52 the weeks
of the long year, 60 - the sixty minutes of the hour, 104 - perhaps a dating sonnet for the year 1604; 126, with its
two blank lines bringing the first part of the sequence to an end; the climacteric sonnets 49 and 63. And 101 which
I discuss later as a possible dating reference for the year 1601. All this bears not the stamp of some hastily cobbled
together ill matched group of sonnets, but carries with it a sense of ordering and structure which has been carefully
thought out and applied. No attempt at re-ordering the sequence of the sonnets has ever been successful and there
is no evidence to suggest that this is not the sequence which Shakespeare intended.

Internally therefore there appears to be strong evidence for regarding the Sonnets as being presented in the
sequence and arrangement that Shakespeare had intended for them. External and independent evidence for the
proposition that the work was pirated seems to depend on a dislike of the subject matter and the fact that piracy in
the publishing world was not uncommon. Possibly some of the Quarto editions of the plays were stolen versions,
although without direct documentary evidence by way of protests or apologies it is impossible to be certain which
were the unauthorised editions, and which were not. Our deductions are based mainly on the quality of the text of
the various Quarto editions, not on external factors. It is of course possible that this is an edition of the Sonnets as
Shakespeare intended it to be, but that it is stolen copy and Thomas Thorpe is the rascal publisher who stepped in
between the publication and Shakespeares hopes. In which case we may malign Thorpe to our hearts content, but
it hardly makes any difference, for we have what we desire, the Sonnets as Shakespeare intended them to be seen.
One has to consider also the additional fact that the book was entered in the Stationers Register for 1609 in an
entirely normal manner. If Thorpe was a pariah in the publishing world it might have been difficult for him to have
managed this.

But there is yet one further stumbling block in our attempts to free the Sonnets from the attaint of stolen property,
namely the enigmatic dedication which is prefixed to them. Many have interpreted the wording of this dedication
as evidence that the work was unauthorised. In particular they seize on the phrase the onlie begetter of these
insuing sonnets as pointing to something surreptitiously acquired or to someone filching a manuscript or aiding
another to obtain it. And there is no doubt that the dedication is puzzling and perhaps deliberately misleading.
Here it is in full.

T.T. is evidently Thomas Thorpe, but there is no agreement about the identity of Mr. W.H. He is possibly the fair
youth who inspired the sonnets (although not all of them), or the one who acquired the manuscript, or someone
else. It is not possible to identify him. However it seems unlikely that, if Thorpe had acquired the manuscript by
clandestine means, he would openly boast of his theft and give a clue to the identity of his accomplice.

My interpretation of this dedication is entirely different, and I maintain that it is written by Shakespeare, or at least
put there with his agreement, and that its wording is consistent with the themes of the Sonnets. In particular the
9
phrase onlie begetter is an oblique reference to the fair youth of the Sonnets and to the onlie begotten Son of God of
the Bible, Christ. Undoubtedly the reference could be seen as blasphemous, and it is treading a very fine line
between what is acceptable and what is not. But the phrase onlie begotten does not occur other than in a biblical
context, and it seems unlikely that contemporary readers woulkd be unaware of this, and fail to notice the echo in
the words onlie begetter. The fact that this interpretation of the words is not generally seized upon suggests that
Shakespeare was using it before an audience, perhaps a select one, who understood its meaning. The reason I
propose that we should see this link is that it ties in with many of the thoughts expressed in the sonnets about the
beloved and about the lover himself. In this context Sonnet 37 is important and provides many of the clues as to
how we should interpret those sonnets which have quasi-religious language or themes. I have italicised the words
which have a biblical or religious reference.

As a decrepit father takes delight

To see his active child do deeds of youth,
So I, made lame by fortune's dearest spite,
Take all my comfort of thy worth and truth. 4
For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit,
Or any of these all, or all, or more,
Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit,
I make my love engrafted to this store: 8
So then I am not lame, poor, nor despised,
Whilst that this shadow doth such substance give
That I in thy abundance am sufficed
And by a part of all thy glory live. 12
Look what is best, that best I wish in thee:
This wish I have; then ten times happy me!

In the opening of St Johnss Gospel we find the words

And the same word became fleshe, and dwelt among us (and we sawe the glory of it, as the glory of the
only begotten sonne of the father) full of grace and trueth.

In this sonnet we find that the youth is praised for his worth and truth (l.4) and also admired for his glory(l.12).
This is an unusual combination of words to find in a 14 line sonnet. It is true that worth replaces the grace of the
Gospel, but perhaps the complete phrase would be too much of a direct reference and could lay the poet open to the
charge of blasphemy, a serious matter in those times. But the mere fact that the beloved is being praised for his
truth is in itself an oddity. Whereas beauty, birth, wealth and wit may be desirable and oft praised qualities, truth
in a loved one does not seem entirely relevant, especially as later on we find that he is not particularly faithful.
Hence I would argue that the connection with the Gospel is all the more probable, since it is not an obvious epithet
to apply.

There has also been much discussion of line 9. Can the poet really have been lame! I would suggest that this is a
reference to Luke:

But when thou makest a feast, call the poore, the feeble, the lame, & the blynde.

The contrast that is being built up is between the glory, nobility and abundant good qualities of the beloved and the
lowliness and wretchedness of the lover. He is despised among men, a familiar phrase from Isaiah

He is dispised and abhorred of men, he is such a man as hath good experience of sorowes and
infirmities. Isaiah 53.3.

10
But his love for the youth rescues him from this calamity. So then I am not lame, poor, nor despised. The youth
is identified with the only begotten, the Son of God, while the lover, the poet, becomes an abject creature, one of the
poor, feeble and meek, who will nevertheless inherit the earth. There is also a partial identification of the poet with
the suffering Christ, he becomes, temporarily at least, the despised Christ taunted and mocked by the Jews. In a
sense this is inevitable, since beloved and lover are one, they therefore share the same interchangeable identity. The
theme of the suffering Christ is used again in some of the later sonnets.

There is yet another religious reference in line 10. The introduction of shadow and substance at this point is very
odd and seems almost inexplicable. What exactly is meant by this shadow and what is the substance that it gives?
Some light is shed on the meaning if we consider the words of the Nicene creed:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the
essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of
one substance with the Father;

Once again the identification is being made between the beloved and the onlie-begotten. Perhaps the mention of
father in line 1 brought the passage subconsciously to mind. In any case, the concatenation of the two words,
father and substance is not common and is enough to make the reader wonder what the references might be.
There is an additional meaning of substance which most Jacobean readers would be familiar with. It is given as
the primary meaning in OED, and it refers to the nature or essence of God, with special reference to the Trinity. A
further meaning 3c., relates to the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist, the body of Christ as
transubstantiated at the communion. These are the relevant OED entries:

All this might seem tortured and far-fetched to a modern ear but clearly would not have appeared so to a
contemporary reader who would have been familiar with the theological disputes of the day. This shadow which
such substance gives, probably refers back to the store of qualities which the youth possesses, worth, truth, beauty,
birth, wealth, wit, abstract shadowy qualities, which nevertheless transubstantiate into something much more real
and divine. But in its Eucharistic reference it perhaps means that the bread and wine are the shadow, (or the
accidentes and shewes of the 1565 quotation above) while the body and blood of Christ are the substance or
essence.

So this is yet another link that suggests that we are being steered towards equating the beloved with Christ, or
perhaps equating human love with divine love, or perhaps allegorically implying that we will find our faith and
consolation through religion.

Further confirmation of the religious threads running through this sonnet is to be found in Psalm 37, which also
contains verbal echoes in truth, abundance, poor. The theme of the Psalm is:

Put thou thy trust in God, and be doing good: dwell in the land, and feede in trueth. Ps.3.3.

Here perhaps is a reason why the fair youth must be praised for his truth. He personifies all that is good in the
world. The poet however is not his equal, but he need not despair, for

... the meeke spirited shall possesse the earth: and shalbe delighted in the aboundaunce of peace.
PS.37.11.

And indeed the poet declares that I in thy abundance am sufficed, and he lives in the reflected glory of the
beloved.. Finally the reference to the poor, the lame and despised find an echo in

The vngodly haue drawen out the sworde, and haue bended their bowe: to cast downe the poore and
needie, and to slay such as be of right conuersation. PS.37.14.
11
Without the love that the youth shows towards him, the poet would be cast out with the poor, the needy and the
lame. But he is rescued by this love and suffices in its abundance.

It is probable that we would not pick out these cross references if this were not Sonnet 37 echoing Psalm 37, but the
coincidence is too great to ignore. The references also dovetail in with more religious hints and suggestions which
occur in some of the other (mostly later in the sequence) sonnets. Surprisingly there are very few verbal echoes of
the Psalms in the Sonnets.

Clearly this echoing and re-echoing of pregnant words is operating in a number of ways. It is enriching the
vocabulary of love and revealing the complexity of the experience. It is highlighting the similarities between divine
and human love. It is also perhaps acting allegorically, or on a secondary level, expressing a love for, say, truth,
beauty, religion, the true god. We cannot be sure what the intention is, but it is clear that the references are not
entirely accidental.

It is interesting to speculate on the significance of the number 37. Why choose Sonnet 37 to make these biblical
references? Shakespeare was 37 in the year 1601, and it is possible that this year has some special relevance in
relation to the Sonnets. It was the year in which The Phoenix and the Turtle was published, a strange enigmatic
work which also has love as its theme. It celebrates beauty, truth and grace, the qualities of divinity enshrined in St.
Johns Gospel and celebrated in the Sonnets to the youth.

And the same word became fleshe, and dwelt among us (and we sawe the glory of it, as the glory of the
only begotten sonne of the father) full of grace and trueth.John 1.14.

Beauty, truth and rarity,

Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclosed, in cinders lie. P&T 53-55.

It also deals obliquely with the mystery of the Trinity and the essence of the Eucharist, cloaked in the language of
the unity of the two loving birds as ideals of saintly love.

So they loved as love in twain 25

Had the essence but in one,
Two distincts, division none:
Number there in love was slain. 29

...

Property was thus appalled, 37

That the self was not the same;
Single nature's double name
Neither two nor one was called. 40

Reason, in itself confounded,

Saw division grow together, 42
To themselves yet either neither,
Simple were so well compounded: PT 25-29; 37-44.

This echoes the traditional language of love poetry of the time, as for example Sir Philip Sidneys

His heart in me keeps him and me in one,

My heart in him his thoughts and senses guides:

12
 He loves my heart, for once it was his own,
I cherish his because in me it bides: The Bargain

But the Sidney work does not have the overtones of theological reference which Shakespeares poem has. There
are references in these lines of PT to the Eucharist (25-29), to the mystery of the Incarnation (38-40), possibly also
to the Trinity (41-2), and perhaps also to the relationship of faith and reason in the Christian tradition. There are
many verbal echoes in the Sonnets themselves to PT, perhaps the most striking being that between Sonnet 125 and
ll.43-4 of PT.

To themselves yet either neither,

Simple were so well compounded: PT 43-4.

For compound sweet forgoing simple savour 125. 7.

It must be admitted that there is no easy explanation of the P&T lines. The simple savour of the sonnet is probably
hinting at the Eucharist, or the substance of the godhead which has been forfeited for more erudite but false beliefs.
In P&T the meaning is perhaps that as singular essences neither the phoenix nor the turtle were as perfect as when
they were combined miraculously, astounding reason, into one substance. The hidden references being to the
mystery of the twofold nature of the Eucharist, the body and blood which are the complete essence of Christ both
together and, under either kind alone and probably also to the mystery of the Incarnation, the Father giving his
only begotten son to the world, and yet the two remaining one. ( I deal more fully with the various religious
references of Sonnet 125 below (p.23)).

But returning to the date of 1601, it is perhaps worth looking at Sonnet 101, which, being the first in the new
century of sonnets (i.e. No. 101), might be a pointer to the first year of the new century, 1601. What is interesting
in this sonnet, which I give below, is that once again we find similar themes arising, particular the divine qualities
of beauty and truth.

O truant Muse, what shall be thy amends

For thy neglect of truth in beauty dyed?
Both truth and beauty on my love depends;
So dost thou too, and therein dignified.
Make answer, Muse: wilt thou not haply say
'Truth needs no colour, with his colour fixed;
Beauty no pencil, beauty's truth to lay;
But best is best, if never intermixed?'
Because he needs no praise, wilt thou be dumb?
Excuse not silence so; for't lies in thee
To make him much outlive a gilded tomb,
And to be praised of ages yet to be.
Then do thy office, Muse; I teach thee how
To make him seem long hence as he shows now. 101

This once again is the beauty, truth and rarity of P&T, as well as the worth and truth, and beauty, birth etc. Of Sonn 37.
And yet there is one even more striking echo from 37, for line 8 of 101 above seems to hark back to the closing couplet of
37:

But best is best, if never intermixed 101.8

Look what is best, that best I wish in thee

This wish I have; then ten times happy me! 37. 13-14.

13
It is worth noting how much Sonnet 101 is suffused with religious imagery. What shall be thy amends is suggestive of
penance after absolution; neglect of truth is a religious failing, a sin against the Holy Spirit; truth and beauty are qualities
of the Son of God; But best is best, if never intermixed is a reference perhaps to the communion wafer (see below); praise,
be praised of ages yet to be is reminiscent of Praise ye the Lord, Hosannah in the highest, Gloria in excelsis, in saecula
saeculorum, etc.; a gilded tomb recalls the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, but probably more directly the gilded sepulchre
which was decked with costly cloths at the Easter service in the old Sarum rite of the Mass; do thy office recalls the priestly
task of reciting divine office (prayers) at various times of the day.

Line 8 of Sonn 101 But best is best, if never intermixed echoes not only 37.13, Look what is best, that best I wish in
thee, but also hides a link to the oblation, poor but free of Sonn 125, an offering which is not mixed with
seconds, knows no art. A simple offering, in other words, made from the best material. Booth points out that
instructions appended to the Communion Service in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) go into detail about
obtaining for communion bread the best and purest wheat bread, that conveniently may be gotten BCP, p198.
(See the discussion on Sonn 125 below). The connection is somewhat tenuous, but in the context of the other
religious and liturgical echoes embedded in these sonnets, it is not too far fetched. We are being invited to see
something divine in the best, perhaps the Eucharist, perhaps the onlie-begotten, perhaps God in one of the forms
made manifest to Christians. The line from Sonn. 101, But best is best, if never intermixed, read in isolation is
tautological and almost meaningless. It needs some external reference to give it substance. Equally the line from 37. Look
what is best, that best I wish in thee arises as it were from nowhere. We have been told that the beloved is incomparable in
terms of truth, beauty, worth, glory, and now it seems that the best must be wished upon him, whatever the best is. Perhaps
there is some additional meaning which surpasses all these other qualities.

Although it is not clear precisely why these references are buried in these sonnets and to what they might be
pointing or what they are commemorating, it is evident that there is some meaning implied over and above that of
mere loving declarations to the youth. To what extent the year 1601 is relevant one may only conjecture. The most
dramatic event of the year was the uprising led by Essex and his subsequent execution. Shakespeares company
had strong links with Essex, and it is known that they performed Richard II for his household on the eve of the
insurrection. How they extricated themselves from complicity in the event is not known. It is possible that Essex
had protected them in other ways, and he could have had covert Catholic sympathies, which may have contributed
to his downfall. But even so it is unclear what sort of message these two sonnets, 37 and 101, might have been
intended to convey. They were written perhaps in 1601 but not published until 1609. But private readers there might have
been aplenty. However, all that we can establish is that they, along with various other sonnets in the sequence, do carry some
sort of covert religious message.

As we proceed through the sonnets we find various other links to Christian texts. I will take these references in
sequence. Sonnet 34 deals with sorrow, denial and repentance. The links are not as strong as in the sonnet just
dealt with, but to the attentive ear they are clearly present. In this sonnet the words repent, offender, cross, tears
and ransom in lines 10 - 14 are words which invoke Christian teachings of sin, forgiveness and redemption. The
tears of repentance in line 13, like Peter's tears on remembering what Jesus had said to him, also point to a strong
New Testament echo.

Though thou repent, yet I have still the loss:

The offender's sorrow lends but weak relief
To him that bears the strong offence's cross.
Ah! but those tears are pearl which thy love sheds,
And they are rich and ransom all ill deeds. 34.10-14

In this sonnet the poet links himself to the sufferings of Christ. He is the one betrayed, the one who has to bear the
cross, the one who forgives, the one for whom tears are shed. The words offender and offence may be linked to
Peters denial of Christ.

14
Then sayth Iesus vnto them: All ye shalbe offended because of me this night. For it is written: I wyll
smyte the shephearde, and the sheepe of the flocke shalbe scattered abrode. 32 But after I am rysen
againe, I wyll go before you into Galilee. 33 Peter aunswered, and said vnto him: though all men be
offended, because of thee, yet wyll I neuer be offended. 34 Iesus sayde vnto hym: Ueryly I say vnto thee,
that in this same nyght, before the Cocke crowe, thou shalt denie me thryse. Matt. 26.31-34.

To offend is to stumble morally, to commit sin (OED 2). In l.12 cross is an emendation for loss, probably a correct
one, since the idea of taking up and bearing ones cross is widespread in the NT, and loss would merely be a
repetition of the ending of l.10.

And whosoeuer doth not beare his crosse, and come after me, can not be my disciple. Luke 14.27.

This is from the same chapter of Luke which mentions the poor, the feeble, the lame and the blind, just a few verses
above, and which is echoed in Sonnet 37. (See p.6 above). One may question whether the poet would have risked
the charge of blasphemy by linking himself to Christ in this way (he is the one betrayed, the one who has to bear the
cross, the one who forgives, the one for whom tears of repentance are shed). It is possible that the first audience for
these sonnets, the ones in the inner circle for whom they were originally written, would have picked up the tenuous
allusions and enjoyed them for the richness of context which they add to the poem. They are blasphemous only if
taken in a mocking sense, but when used to show that all human love is a mirror of divine love, even to the details
of when that love endures betrayal, they become things of beauty.

We come now to sonnet 52, important for its place as marking the long year of 52 weeks, and also for its sense of
mystery. The closing couplet is usually linked to the beatitudes.

Blessed are you, whose worthiness gives scope,

Being had, to triumph, being lacked, to hope. 52. 13-14.

This perhaps recalls Christs sermon of the Beatitudes:

And he lyft vp his eyes vpon his disciples, and sayde: Blessed be ye poore, for yours is the kyngdome of
God. Blessed are ye that hunger nowe, for ye shalbe satisfied. Blessed are ye that weepe nowe, for ye
shall laugh. Luke. 6.20-1.

Undoubtedly the repetition of the idea of the poor (and perhaps the halt and the blind) links back to Sonnet 37. But
I suggest a much closer echo is found in the Sanctus of the Mass, especially as the concept of worthiness is once
again attached to the youth , as in 37 (I).. take all my comfort of your worth and truth. 37. 4. In the Sanctus of
the Tridentine Mass we have

Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.

Hosanna in excelsis.

Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord.

Hosanna in the highest.

This seems to be a closer link than that of the Beatitudes. However it is important here to look at the entire sonnet,
for it is redolent of many Christian themes.

So am I as the rich, whose blessed key
Can bring him to his sweet up-locked treasure,
The which he will not every hour survey,
For blunting the fine point of seldom pleasure.
Therefore are feasts so solemn and so rare,
15
Since, seldom coming, in the long year set,
Like stones of worth they thinly placed are,
Or captain jewels in the carcanet.
So is the time that keeps you as my chest,
Or as the wardrobe which the robe doth hide,
 To make some special instant special blest, Blessed are you, whose worthiness gives scope,
By new unfolding his imprisoned pride. Being had, to triumph, being lacked, to hope. 52.

The feasts referred to are those of the Christian calendar, more probably those of the pre-Reformation calendar,
because the protestant religion was much more suspicious of festivities, whether religious or otherwise, and tended
to see them as the work of the devil. Even today we are still very much under the influence of the protestant work
ethic. In the pre Elizabethan tradition, no doubt preserved in the memory of many of the contemporary breathers
of this world, one of the great feast days was that of Corpus Christi, held on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday,
when the host carefully enclosed in a monstrance was carried in an elaborate and colourful procession. It is
tempting to see an oblique reference to this in the sweet up-locked treasure, and to the stones of worth as the
jewelled encrustations usually found on monstrances. The wardrobe which the robe doth hide perhaps reveals the
richly decorated church vestments worn by the priest on this occasion. Of course these are not certain readings, but
the blessed key and the hidden pride and splendour are likely to be pointers to some hidden references, unknown to
the many but clear to the cognoscenti. Were it not for the other Christian references in the sonnets, especially to the
Trinity in 105, and with Trinity Sunday preceding Corpus Christi, we would be justified in ignoring these hints and
suggestions. But it seems that there are just too many of them for us to pass them by.

What is striking also is that this sonnet is followed by another one of undoubted theological significance.

What is your substance, whereof are you made,
That millions of strange shadows on you tend?
Since every one hath, every one, one shade,
And you, but one, can every shadow lend.
Describe Adonis, and the counterfeit
Is poorly imitated after you;
On Helen's cheek all art of beauty set,
And you in Grecian tires are painted new:
Speak of the spring and foison of the year;
The one doth shadow of your beauty show,
The other as your bounty doth appear;
And you in every blessed shape we know.
In all external grace you have some part,
But you like none, none you, for constant heart. 53.

We have already met the shadow/substance dichotomy in Sonnet 37, but here also there are other key words,
notably grace, blessed and constant. The central section with its Greek mythological references has led
commentators (including myself) to assume that the references are to the Platonic forms, or to the essence of things,
as distinct from the mere shadow of them dancing on the wall of a cave. But discussion of substance in those days
was much more likely to have religious connotations. The echo is again from St. Johns gospel, and the words of
the Nicene creed :

begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

The millions of shadows which tend on him could be angels. The final four lines recall much the same themes as
sonnet 37, for bounty recalls the abundance in which the poet is sufficed, blessed suggests once again the words
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord from the Sanctus of the Mass, grace takes us back to St. Johns
Gospel, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. In the linking of the two words
blessed and grace one also sees an echo of the Hail Mary: Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed
art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. This prayer is the main constituent of the
rosary used frequently in Catholic devotion. Finally the constancy which the poet here praises is an attribute of
God, particularly of the Trinity. It looks forward to the praise of constancy in the youth in Sonnet 105, a sonnet
which is particularly imbued with the mysteries of the Trinity. OED does not highlight constancy as referring
especially to deity, but there is one example given:

OED (3) a1600 Hooker (J.), The laws of God+of a different constitution from the former, in respect of the one's constancy,
and the mutability of the other.

16
In any case the word is a strange one to use of the youth, especially as other sonnets indicate that he is rather flighty
and inconstant. One can only suppose that here it has some other covert meaning.

In sonnet 88 the main theme is that of rejection and scorn by the beloved or by others of the poet.

When thou shalt be disposed to set me light,

And place my merit in the eye of scorn, 88.1-2.

There are no strong verbal echoes from the scriptures, except perhaps in the word scorn, but it is interesting to note that the
word merit was crucial to the doctrinal disputes of the period. One of the chief sources of disagreement between Protestant
and Catholic was the relative importance of faith and good works. The following is a summary of the arguments.

What a sinful man did for himself , insofar as he was able, was defined as merit of fitness or congruity (meritum
congrui or meritum de congruo); what a just man, enabled by divine grace, did for himself or others was defined
as merit of worthiness or condignity (meritum condigni or meritum de condigno). The idea of merit, whether of
congruity or condignity, was a relapse into Pelasgianism according to Luther. ............... The principal antithesis of
the doctrine of justification, for Luther as for the simple and Pauline way of speaking on which he claimed to base
his doctrine was that between salvation by grace through faith and salvation by good works.

What Luther claimed, contrary to Catholic doctrine, was that, in the eyes of God, humans could not achieve anything that was
meritorious by supposed good works, such as acts of charity, or prayers, or purchases of indulgence. The chief element in the
Christian religion, he claimed, was faith and that alone could bring salvation. The Catholic faith, on the contrary, allowed for
the possibility of increasing ones chances of salvation by merit achieved through good works, in addition to faith.

No doubt these disputes are still alive in the Christian churches today, but they are not as vibrant and contentious as, say,
disputes about women priests or homosexuality. But in Shakespeares day these were the living issues of the time, and all
intelligent readers would know about them. The poet here seems to take the side of the Reformers, in the sense that he allows
that his merits are worthless, although he admits that by doing so he is forsworn. Yet he has to side with his beloved, however
preposterous the demands or criticisms are which are made of him or against him. Merit is also used in other sonnets, but in
particular in one that has specific religious references, 108, which we shall look at shortly.

The next sonnet in the series which takes up the religious references, 105, is perhaps crucial for our understanding of the hints
and suggestions which are spaced throughout the sequence. It quite clearly has a religious import, a fact accepted by all
commentators.

Let not my love be called idolatry, difference. 8

Nor my beloved as an idol show, 'Fair, kind and true' is all my argument,
Since all alike my songs and praises be Fair, kind, and true' varying to other words;
To one, of one, still such, and ever And in this change is my invention spent,
so. 4 Three themes in one, which wondrous scope
Kind is my love to-day, to-morrow kind, affords. 12
Still constant in a wondrous excellence; 'Fair, kind, and true,' have often lived alone,
Therefore my verse to constancy confined, Which three till now never kept seat in one.
One thing expressing, leaves out 105.

It would indeed be difficult to explain the sonnet without some recourse to biblical or liturgical references. Clearly
the predominant reference is to the Trinity, the three in one of the Godhead. This belief is an essential part of the
Christian tradition. The poet claims here that he is not worshipping an idol, which is expressly forbidden by the
second commandment, for the beloved whom he worships is a copy of the Holy Trinity, if not the Holy Trinity
itself.

In the Canon of the Tridentine Mass, the priest reads a preface, which for Trinity Sunday is the following:

17
It is indeed fitting and right, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give thanks to You,
Lord, Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, who with Your only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit are
one God, one Lord: Not in the oneness of a single person, but three persons in one single essence. For
what we believe from your revelation concerning Your glory, that also we believe of Your Son and of the
Holy Spirit without difference or distinction; so that when we affirm the true and everlasting Godhead we
worship three distinct persons in a oneness of Being and with equality of majesty. And that God the
angels praise with the archangels, cherubim, and seraphs, ceaselessly singing with one voice:

Apart from the general explanation of the Trinity, echoed in the sonnet, one cannot help noticing in particular the
words without difference or distinction, sine differentia discretionis, which clearly links to the poets claim that
his verse, one thing expressing, leaves out difference 105.8. We also have at the beginning of the poem another
echo of the liturgy of the Mass. Line 4,

To one, of one, still such, and ever so.

is surely an echo of

Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, is to You, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy
Spirit, all honour and glory, forever and ever.

These are the words used at the Elevation of the host in the Tridentine Mass. I grant that the word match is not
exact, but the rhythm and sense is very similar, and it seems to compel one to look at it as a sort of Trinitarian
declaration. The usually quoted link to the Gloria Patri, which occurs in the Mass, is also relevant, especially as it
names the three persons of the Trinity.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever
shall be, world without end.

However this does not seem to have quite the same verbal resonance as the words used at the Elevation, per ipsum,
et cum ipso, et in ipso. There are also probable links to the Athanasian Creed, which was used as an alternative to
the Nicene Creed on certain Sundays, including Trinity Sunday. Thus we find in this creed the following:

and yet they are not three Eternals

but one Eternal,

Three themes in one 12

Which three, till now, never kept seat in one. 14.

Generally speaking the liturgical references have been down played by commentators. There is a danger, as they
see it, that the references might be to a Catholic tradition, rather than a Protestant one. Yet this sonnet more than
most demands to be explained in some sort of religious context, or to have its religious references unravelled.

Shortly after 105, we come to a sequence of three sonnets, 108-110, all having religious connotations. Sonnet 108
contains the famous line

Even as when first I hallowed thy fair name. 108.8.

The reference to hallowed be thy name from the Our Father, the most well known prayer in Christendom is
recognised by all commentators, and indeed part of the sonnet uses the simile of prayer:
18
What's in the brain that ink may character
Which hath not figured to thee my true spirit?
What's new to speak, what new to register,
That may express my love or thy dear merit?
Nothing, sweet boy; but yet, like prayers divine,
I must, each day say o'er the very same,
Counting no old thing old, thou mine, I thine,
Even as when first I hallowed thy fair name. 108. 1-
8.

We note also here the mention of merit once again, the possibility being hinted at that his merit brings him
salvation, or at least lifts him above the level of ordinary mortals. He is equated with God the Father, but since the
Father and Son are of one substance, he is still the only-begotten full of grace and truth, and this is reinforced by the
mutual interchangeability of lover and beloved, thou mine, I thine. One tends to see also in the mention of
prayers divine, the same old thing day after day, a reference to Catholic rather than Protestant practice. For
Protestant prayers were in fact rather more varied, and Protestant tradition eschewed what it saw as the meaningless
repetition of formulae such as in the rosary, in which the Hail Mary was repeated 50 times. The Our Father, from
which the hallowed reference comes, is a part of the Mass, but was also repeated five times in the rosary.

The following sonnet, 109, plays on the ideas of the prodigal son returning, the lost sheep that has been found,
benediction by baptism or holy water, and the frailties of human nature which allow it to sin, all frequent themes in
the church of the day.

O, never say that I was false of heart,
Though absence seemed my flame to qualify.
As easy might I from myself depart
As from my soul, which in thy breast doth lie:
That is my home of love: if I have ranged,
Like him that travels I return again,
Just to the time, not with the time exchanged,
So that myself bring water for my stain.
Never believe, though in my nature reigned
All frailties that besiege all kinds of blood,
That it could so preposterously be stained,
To leave for nothing all thy sum of good;
For nothing this wide universe I call,
Save thou, my rose; in it thou art my all. 109.

This could be the love poem that it purports to be, but its claims of returning to the true love, the rose, which is his
all, seem more like declarations of spiritual decisions, of a return to an abandoned faith. The sum of good may be
the summum bonum of Christian theology, the highest good which St. Augustine considered to be a defining feature
of God.

Sonnet 110 also reads more like a panegyric to the true religion, than a straightforward love poem to his beloved.
The references to selling cheap what is most dear, making old offences of affections new (i.e. committing
frequent sins by changing faith), looking on truth askance and strangely, sit more comfortably in a religious
context than in any other. Line 9, Now all is done, have what shall have no end, is an echo from the Gloria Patri
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen. Line 12 refers to A god in love, to whom I am confined. And thy pure and most most
loving breast of the closing couplet is as much like the bosom of Jesus as it is to the breast of the beloved. Here is
the sonnet in full.

Alas, 'tis true I have gone here and there
And made myself a motley to the view,
Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most
dear,
Made old offences of affections new;
Most true it is that I have looked on truth
19
Askance and strangely: but, by all above,
These blenches gave my heart another youth,
And worse essays proved thee my best of love.
Now all is done, have what shall have no end:
Mine appetite I never more will grind
On newer proof, to try an older friend,
A god in love, to whom I am confined. Then give me welcome, next my heaven the best,
Even to thy pure and most most loving breast. 110.

The repetition of best is particularly noteworthy, since it has connotations of the Eucharist and ties in with
Sonnets 37 and 101, as discussed above.

Sonnet 111 plays with the idea of repentance and penance to obtain absolution of ones sins. The poet promises to
drink eisel, or vinegar, as Christ was forced to do on the cross.

Pity me then and wish I were renewed; No bitterness that I will bitter think,
Whilst, like a willing patient, I will drink Nor double penance, to correct correction. 111. 8-12.
Potions of eisel 'gainst my strong infection

The initial cry of Pity me! does have biblical echoes, for example in the book of Job:

All my most familiers abhorred me: and they whom I loued best, are turned against me. My bone
cleaueth to my skinne and to my fleshe, onely there is left me the skinne about my teeth. Haue pitie vpon
me, haue pitie vpon me, O ye my friendes, for the hande of God hath touched me. Job 19. 19-21.

And in the Psalms we have:

Reproofe hath broke my heart a peeces, I am full of heauinesse: I loked for some to haue pitie on me,
but there was none, and for some that shoulde comfort me, but I coulde fynde none. Ps. 69.20

The drinking of eisel, however, is perhaps more suggestive of Christ forsaken on the cross.

And about the nynth houre, Iesus cried with a loude voyce, saying: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is to
say: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stode there, when they hearde
that, saide: This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ranne, and toke a sponge, and when
he had filled it full of vineger, he put it on a reede, and gaue hym to drynke. Matt.27.46-8.

Eisel is a an old word meaning vinegar, or a foul potion containing vinegar. This is followed in the poem by the
proposal that he do penance to correct and absolve his sins, something which is usually imposed after confession in
the Catholic tradition, but more or less abandoned by Protestantism, except in the high church. Ten Our Fathers and
ten Hail Marys might be a typical penance, linking us back to the repeated prayers divine of 108. The final
couplet re-echoes the cry of Job Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, o ye my friends:

Pity me then, dear friend, and I assure ye

Even that your pity is enough to cure me. 111. 13-14.

The penultimate sonnet to the youth, 125, before the one in which he bids farewell to the lovely boy, is one of the
most enigmatic, but it is clearly laden with religious references as well as secular ones.

Were 't aught to me I bore the canopy, Lose all, and more, by paying too much rent,
With my extern the outward honouring, For compound sweet forgoing simple savour,
Or laid great bases for eternity, Pitiful thrivers, in their gazing
Which prove more short than waste or spent? 8
ruining? 4 No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,
Have I not seen dwellers on form and favour And take thou my oblation, poor but free,
20
Which is not mixed with seconds, knows no art, Hence, thou suborned informer! a true soul
But mutual render, only me for When most impeached stands least in thy control.
thee. 12 125.

Bearing the canopy suggests some sort of procession. It is generally supposed that the coronation of James I is
referred to here, or perhaps a religious procession, such as that of Corpus Christi, either or both. Since the latter
would have been illegal in Protestant England, it is thought to be less likely that the poet here refers to such an
occasion. On the other hand, the unexpected denunciation of the suborned informer in the closing couplet suggests
that we are dealing with forbidden things. What on earth is a suborned informer doing here? The language of the
sonnet does seem to refer to a threat of denunciation. One other possible bearing of the canopy might be as a part
of the ceremony of the Easter Sepulchre, preserved in the Sarum rite of the Mass, but abandoned by Protestantism,
and not used in the Tridentine Mass either. Perhaps Shakespeare has taken part in such a ritual, and has sinned not
only against the political dictats of the time by taking part in a Catholic service, but has sinned also against the
promulgations of the Catholic faith as decreed by Pius V in 1570, and reinforced by Clement VIII in 1604 when he
issued a revised and corrected edition of the Tridentine Mass. The bearing of a canopy in the Easter sepulchre ritual
is described in an account written by a former monk of Durham Abbey in 1590.

they tooke a marvelous beautiful Image of our saviour representinge the resurrection with a crosse in his
hand in the breast wheof was enclosed in bright Christall the holy sacrament of the altar, throughe the
which christall the blessed host was conspicuous, to the behoulders, then after the elevation of the said
picture carryed by the said 2 monkes uppon a faire velvett cushion all embrodered singinge the anthem
of christus resurgens they brought to the high altar settinge that on the midst therof whereon it stood the
two monkes kneelinge on theire knees before the altar, and senceing (censing) it all the time that the
rest of the whole quire was in singinge the foresaid anthem of Christus resurgens, the which anthem
being ended the 2 monkes tooke up the cushines and the picture from the altar supportinge it betwixt
them, proceeding in procession from the high altar to the south quire dore where there was 4 antient
gentlemen belonginge to the prior appointed to attend theire cominge holdinge upp a most rich
cannopye of purple velvett tached round about with redd silke, and gold fringe, and at everye
corner did stand one of theise ancient gentlemen to beare it over the said Image, with the holy
sacrament carried by two monkes round about the church the whole quire waitinge uppon it with goodly
torches and great store of other lights, all singinge rejoyceinge and praising god most devoutly till they
came to the high altar againe, wheron they did place the said Image there to remaine untill the assencion
day.

The appearance of a suborned informer in this sonnet does seem to relate to something forbidden, something
worthy of impeachment and denunciation. Since an informer in those times would mainly be informing against
Catholics, the supposition must be that the poet here defies the threat made against him in this connection. The
language of the sonnet calls to mind the sacrifice of the Eucharist, celebrated in the Roman Catholic Mass, which
formed the basis of the Communion Service in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). The two Latinate words of the
third quatrain, obsequious and oblation, seem to be echoes from the Canon of the Mass.

Graciously accept, then, we beseech You, O Lord, this service of our worship and that of all Your
household. Provide that our days be spent in Your peace, save us from everlasting damnation, and
cause us to be numbered in the flock you have chosen.

O God, deign to bless what we offer, and make it approved, effective, right, and wholly pleasing in every
way, that it may become for our good, the Body and Blood of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ.

Of two other uses of the word oblation by Shakespeare, one is in The Lovers Complaint in a similar context.

21
Lo, all these trophies of affections hot, That is, to you, my origin and ender;
Of pensived and subdued desires the tender, For these, of force, must your oblations be,
Nature hath charged me that I hoard them not, Since I their altar, you enpatron me. LC.218-224.
But yield them up where I myself must render,

In this verse of LC the references are clearly religious, especially with the introduction of the altar in the last line.
The lover offers all his past desires and triumphs as an oblation on the altar of love to the girl he is wooing. My
origin and ender is another way of saying My alpha and omega, an obvious biblical reference.

But we also have in the sonnet No, let me be obsequious in thy heart, probably an echo from the Canon of the
Mass, in the Final Prayer and Dismissal:

May the tribute of my worship be pleasing to You, most Holy Trinity.

The translation here gives tribute for obsequium. The word in conjunction with servitutis meae (my obligation or
contract) implies fulfilment of duty, in this case the duty of love. Since the beloved has been identified with the
Holy Trinity in Sonnet 105 it is not surprising to find here that the poet offers to be obsequious to him, i.e. to offer
to be attentive and devoted to him. Shakespeare uses the phrase obsequious in with the same meaning in the
Merry Wives of Windsor.

Mistress Ford, your sorrow hath eaten up my only, Mistress Ford, in the simple
sufferance. I see you are obsequious in your love, office of love, but in all the accoutrement,
and I profess requital to a hair's breadth; not complement and ceremony of it. MWW.IV.2.1-6.

But in this example there is probably no hidden reference. It may therefore be argued that one is reading too much
into the sonnet and deriving too much from a particular word. In the case of MWW I agree that there is no need to
delve for further meanings, but with sonnet 125 there is a difference of magnitude. It is not the word obsequious on
its own which draws attention to itself, it is the entire cluster of words and phrases throughout the sonnet which are
redolent of some hidden references in liturgical forms which invite the attentive reader to seek out some hidden
message buried within. Thus compound sweet, simple savour, obsequious, oblation, not mixed with seconds,
mutual render all have some connection with the Eucharist of the Mass, or the Communion Service. Mutual render
takes one directly to the point in the service where the host is offered as a sacrifice, in the sense that just as Christ
rendered himself on the cross for mankind (BCP. P.194) so we offer the host and ourselves in the hope that it will be
acceptable in the eyes of God.

Most humbly we implore You, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your Holy
Angel to Your altar above, before the face of Your Divine Majesty. And may those of us who by sharing in
the Sacrifice of this altar shall receive the Most Sacred Body and Blood of Your Son, be filled with every
grace and heavenly blessing,

Not mixed with seconds is probably a reference to the pure flour which must be used to make the communion
wafer. Obsequious and oblation both occur in the Canon of the Mass (see above). Compound sweet and simple
savour probably also have their counterparts in the liturgies of the time. There is possibly an echo from St. Pauls
epistle to the Ephesians:

And walke ye in loue, euen as Christe hath loued vs, and hath geuen hym selfe for vs an offering
and a sacrifice of a sweete smellyng sauour to God. Eph.5.2.

The description of the oblation, poor but free also finds an echo in the Canon of the Mass:
22
 (We) offer to Your supreme Majesty, of the gifts bestowed upon us, the pure Victim, the holy
Victim, the all-perfect Victim: the holy Bread of life eternal and the Chalice of perpetual salvation.

Poore in the speech of the time was easily confused with pure , and there is also a link back to other sonnets,
notably to 37, with its many religious references: So then I am not lame, poor, nor despised 37.9.

It must be admitted that 125 is one of the most enigmatic of the sonnets and there are many interpretations
available. It seems to be much more than a love poem, although one could with difficulty construe it simply as
that. For it is very difficult to explain the phrases bore the canopy, great bases for eternity, dwellers on form and
favour, pitiful thrivers, suborned informer, impeached. All no doubt have their counterparts in the political and
religious life of the time yet we do not know to whom or to what these references apply. We can guess for example
that dwellers on form and favour are those who have abandoned their cherished beliefs and subscribed, for the sake
of advancement, to the current orthodoxy (a practice as familiar today as it was in Shakespeares time); pitiful
thrivers could be fools who think they are prospering by mere contact with the powerful and wealthy but simply
waste their time in gawking; the great bases for eternity could be some marvellous constructions of the time, but
one suspects it has a more philosophical and moral meaning, especially with the following qualifier Which prove
more short than waste or ruining. Probably some adherence to a new or old faith is implied, or perhaps the mere
preference for temporal advancement at the expense of ones own soul and spiritual well-being. And finally the
suborned informer springs from nowhere into the poem and is, as it were, sent packing. Some have even suggested
that it refers to the beloved youth himself, yet that surely would be an odd term to apply to one for whom the writer
professed undying love. If it were not for the evidence of the previous sonnets with their religious connotations we
could dismiss the religious links in this sonnet as being mere accidents. But this is the final sonnet which sums up
the commitment of love, the love which has been the subject of the preceding 124 poems. It is pregnant with many
hidden meanings and is much more than a mere statement of adoration of the youth. Although one should be
cautious of making any particular claim for partisanship of this or that, it does seem that over and above the simple
love relationship there is a declaration of a preference for perhaps the Roman rite or, perhaps, a nostalgic longing
for the old religion with its colour and splendour. It is difficult to separate out the correspondences, whether they
lean more heavily towards the BCP, or to the Mass. The latter would have been in Latin, so there is an additional
linguistic barrier to any linkage. But the echoes from the Mass seem to me to be more cogent than those from the
BCP. One significant point is that nearly all the religious references detailed above are contained within the Mass
itself, apart from the few scattered scriptural ones.

In the remaining sonnets 127-152 describing his infatuation with the dark lady, there are few directly religious
references. 144 with its heaven/hell imagery could be seen as a depiction of the claims of two conflicting faiths, but
the predominant sense is that of seduction and sexual betrayal. 146 is however more interesting in that it appears to
be entirely concerned with the fate of ones immortal soul. It is not a love poem at all and therefore stands out from
the rest because of its unusual religious theme (unusual in the context of the other sonnets), which in this case is not
obscured by references to the dark lady or the fair youth. There are nevertheless no obvious echoes from scripture
that spring to ones attention. Yet line 11, an adjuration to the soul, strikes me as being worthy of more
consideration than commentators have given to it.

Buy terms divine in selling hours of dross; 146.11.

It is very probable that this is an oblique (or even a direct) reference to the selling of papal indulgences. These were
remissions for time (terms) which would be spent in purgatory as the result of sins committed. These remissions
could be obtained through papal authority and by the performing of some good work such as the giving of alms.
Giving money to provide a new church for example would be considered a worthy cause which could earn an
indulgence, a release from some of the pains of purgatory to which the sinner was destined because of his/her sins.
The particular case which incensed Luther, and which provided the motive for his challenge against the established
church, was the decision by Pope Leo X to provide indulgences in order to pay for the refurbishment of St. Peters
Basilica in Rome. These indulgences were sold rather aggressively in Luthers district and little heed was paid to

23
the sensitivities of those who thought that redemption was an entirely private matter between God and man. The
laity believed that they could purchase forgiveness of sins through these indulgences, irrespective of what those sins
were, and even without the sinners necessarily feeling repentance. Luther thought that this was a travesty of the
teachings of the Gospel and it resulted in his writing his 95 theses dealing with the doctrine of pardon and remission
of sins which were nailed to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg in 1517, the publication and contents of
which are widely regarded as being the catalyst for the Reformation. Shakespeare is probably here alluding to he
sale of indulgences, not exactly suggesting that anyone should go out and purchase redemption by investing in
them, but implying that all was not as simple as the Reformers contended, and that salvation could be attained by
merit, and even by some sacrifice of ones wealth, earthly dross, to buy good works, including even the
beautification of earthly churches. The terms divine are therefore contractual obligations between the church and
individuals, or between God and man, or they might also be periods of time in which the suffering in purgatory was
remitted, the net effect of which would be that they could also be periods of time spent in heaven, since any
shortening of purgatorial time meant more time spent in heaven. Shakespeare certainly used the word term to
describe a time spent in purgatory, as may be seen in Hamlet:
I am thy father's spirit,
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confin'd to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg'd away. Ham.1.V.745-9.

The word buy, or the past tense bought, is also found in numerous cases referring to the purchase of redemption, or
the ransoming of the soul. OED gives the following:

4. To set free by paying a price; to redeem, ransom; esp. fig. in Theol. to redeem (from sin, hell, etc.). Obs. exc. in
theological use, and in that now rather a conscious metaphor from 1; redeem being the ordinary word for this sense.

It is likely therefore that Shakespeare had in mind the purchasing of indulgences when adjuring his soul to
Buy terms divine in selling hours of dross

though the line has at the same time a more generalised meaning, purchase redemption by getting rid of worthless
earthly pursuits. Although it must be admitted that detailed examination does lead one up a blind alley, since
dross, being worthless refuse, would not sell for much, and therefore one would not be able to buy very much from
the proceeds. One has to interpret the meaning somewhat indirectly by assuming that selling hours of dross
implies giving up hours spent on pursuits devoted to earthly riches, and the mere fact of doing this gives one time
and resources to buy terms divine.

In addition it is probably also relevant that part of the defence used by the Church against the strictures of Luther
was the Unigenitus Dei Filius, (the only-begotten Son of God), the papal bull issued by Clement VI in 1343 in
connection with indulgences. It was used as an important part of the argument in favour of indulgences and
brought to the fore in the examination and condemnation of Luther. Since the onlie-begetter is an essential part of
the dedication of the sonnets, and the link between the fair youth and the only-begotten Son of God is one which I
hope I have shown above to be unmistakeable, it may well be that Shakespeare enjoyed this one extra nod in the
direction of a religious icon. It was one further link in the chain of ideas which allowed him to convey something
over and above the mere idea of love which he set out to explore, something of more eternal significance.

But the fact is that, however we construe these religious references, scattered as they are throughout the poems,
they add further support to the idea that the series was deliberately organised to contain them, and perhaps to
conceal them. It was not something hastily thrown together without order or sequence. And if we accept that there
is some hidden revelation contained within them, would the publisher have known about this, or, if the work was

24
known to enjoin Catholic sympathies, would he have dared to publish it? And what part did Thomas Thorpe have
to play in all this?

We know that Thorpe published works by Johnson, Marston, Chapman and others and that he was closely
associated with Edward Blount, a co-publisher of the First Folio of Shakespeares Plays prepared by Heminge and
Condell. In addition we now know that he visited Spain in 1596 and had dealings with the Jesuit adviser to the
Spanish Court on English matters, Father Robert Persons, and with another exiled and outlawed Englishman, Sir
Francis Englefield. What he was doing in Spain is not clear, but one thing is certain, and that is that no one from
England could visit Spain in those days without strong protection from a powerful personage. In this case it was
probably the protection of Edward Somerset, the Fourth Earl of Worcester, or indirectly through his secretary
William Sterrell who had been appointed

Being known to Blount and the playwrights Jonson, Chapman and Marston, and no doubt others, it is likely that he
moved in the same circles in which Shakespeare moved. It is hardly likely that the publisher of Sejanus His Fall,
the play by Jonson in which Shakespeare acted, would be unknown to Shakespeare. Surely all these men discussed
with each other who was publishing what, the reasons thereto, and the advantages of employing one publisher
rather than another. It is interesting to note that Jonson had converted to Catholicism in 1598. Did this have
anything to do with his use of Thorpe, the one who had been to Catholic Spain?

There is another indirect connection that Shakespeare has with Spain, and that is the fact that the Mountjoy son-in-
law, Stephen Belott, the apprentice in the house in which Shakespeare lived for several years who married
Mountjoys daughter, went to Spain perhaps in 1603. These are all very odd connections for one who is often
depicted as the model of orthodoxy, or entirely indifferent to religion in his writings.

I have no particular desire to proclaim that Shakespeare belonged to some particular faith or group or sect, although
I realise it is fashionable to make such partisan claims nowadays. What I do wish to establish however is the oddity
and abnormality of these relationships, in the context of the time, that Shakespeare apparently had with Mountjoy,
Thorpe, Sterrell, Essex, especially for one who in other respects seems keen to declare himself as a pillar of the
establishment. Why else should he seek to restore to the family its own coat of arms? This oddity and abnormality
is mirrored in the sonnets, which clearly have some message hidden in them beyond that of the description of pure
love. We do not know what that message is, but in many places it seems to be leaning towards a declaration in
favour of the old religion. But it may be that that fact is merely accepted as background, understood by all in the
know, and that something more obscure and recondite is being promoted, such as a protest against the Tridentine
Mass in favour of the Sarum rite, or perhaps the reverse. Perhaps more significant, and closer to the time of
publication of the sonnets, on 7 July 1604, with his Apostolic Constitution Cum Sanctissimum, Pope Clement VIII
promulgated his revised Missal, "notwithstanding whatsoever licenses, indults and privileges hitherto granted by Us
or by the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, to print the aforenamed Missal of Pius V, which by these presents We
expressly revoke and which We wish to be revoked. Could the Sonnets, with their many echoes from the Mass, be
covertly supporting this promulgation, or opposing it?

If we return to the enigmatic dedication of the Sonnets, it has often been claimed that it resembles a lapidary
inscription, such as would be found on a tombstone, or on a memorial. But there are other resemblances which are
not usually taken into account. Two unrecorded resemblances which I find fairly plausible are, firstly, that
superficially it resembles a papal cross as in the image below.

Secondly, it resembles in some ways the manner in which the words of the consecration are printed in a Roman
missal. These are the sacred words which form the climax of the Mass and in modern days they are usually printed
in capitals and in red ink. An example of this is shown below.

I have not managed to establish when the custom first originated of having these words capitalised and centred, but
I suspect it pre-dates printing. It does not occur in every missal, and may not have been common in Shakespeares
25
day. Nor for that matter do I know whether Shakespeare ever looked inside a Roman Missal. Given the time of his
birth it is highly probable that vestiges of Catholicism remained in Stratford and within his family and that he
would have known of the old faith.

The resemblances to the papal cross and the format of the words of the consecration illustrated above are by no
means exact. But that is true also of other supposed precursors of the form, as for example the supposed lapidary
format of the inscription in Ben Jonsons Volpone, published by Thorpe in 1607. The dedication of the Sonnets is
not an exact replica of the Volpone dedication either. What we are looking for are similarities, not precise copies.

The point I would like to stress is that the accumulation of references to biblical and liturgical texts listed above
indicates that something ambivalent and anomalous is being discreetly suggested, something well outside the limits
of a normal sequence of love sonnets. For it is stretching credulity too far to claim that Shakespeare was replying to
actual charges or accusations of idolatrous love, of carrying a canopy to glorify that love, or was threatened by a
suborned informer because of that love. Would anyone have said to him I think your love of so and so is
idolatrous, or I will inform against you because of this love of yours? The religious references imply a religious
theme, probably a muted pro-Catholic one, which could well have attracted the attentions of a suborned informer.
But we cannot be sure. It would be wrong to envisage the writing of the sonnets as a deliberate and meticulously
planned exercise to promote an allegorical message. It is more likely that the idea came in discussions with Thorpe
and others, and was generally welcomed. The bulk of the sonnets had probably already been written, but some
were perhaps modified and others written specifically for the occasion. The task was to make them sufficiently
recognisable to those in the circles in which Shakespeare moved, to whom such things appealed, while at the same
time avoiding the undue attention of authority.

Even if it could be proved that Thorpe was a piratical publisher of the Sonnets, we would still have to explain the
significance of the religious references. The probability that they were published by him with Shakespeares
consent sets them within a more comprehensible context.

We have also to consider the anomaly that the sonnets were a series of love poems addressed mostly to a man. For
those in favour of promoting homosexuality, this is a godsend. The reality is however that the concept of
homosexuality and the word itself did not exist in Shakespeares day. To claim therefore that this is Shakespeares
declaration of his sexual preferences is both ahistoric and naive. It is indeed probable that he loved a male youth
and wrote sonnets about the experience. The evidence of the sonnets themselves however suggests that the
relationship was not a sexual one, and Sonnet 20 explicitly states so. What he seems to be doing is casting the
experience of love in some of its most extreme forms, the love of a man for a man, the love hate relationship of a
man for a woman whom he both adores and despises, the love of a woman for a man who has seduced and
abandoned her. Perhaps this is a reaction against the rather sickly tradition of sonnets of the period, sonnets in
which the woman was always perfect and divine, and the man pined endlessly for her. What would love be like if
the loved object was imperfect to the point of not even being a legitimate object of love? What strikes one most in
reading the poems is that they are expressions and accounts of love which almost anyone could share in, they are
the human norm, they are the abstracts and brief chronicles of those feelings which most of us have at some time
lived through and enjoyed or endured. And strangely, the loved object does not seem to be the most important part
of the experience, for the descriptions, as the reader absorbs them, are universalised to reflect almost anyones
personal experience of love.

In any case, we should ask ourselves whether it is of any significance at the beginning of the 21st century, nearly
400 years after Shakespeares death, if he had or did not have homosexual or bisexual tendencies. Are we trying to
salvage his reputation to protect our heritage? Or to salvage our own reputations? Surely it is more important to
read the sonnets as love poems, duly and legitimately published, which I have no doubt they were and always have
been meant to be, at the same time paying attention to the different layers of meaning which add to their
fascination, and also give us some glimpses into the complexities, terrors and enigmas of the times in which the
author lived.

26
It is important that we drop the pretence that Thorpe was an unauthorised publisher and that Shakespeare did not
wish these sonnets to be published. There is no evidence for this proposition and it merely hinders a proper
understanding of the work. I hope that the interpretations I have provided in this article may help towards this end
and will enable us to look at the sonnets with fresh insight.

G. R. Ledger.

February 2009.

27