Did Shaksper write the Sonnets? [edited title]

I’m definitely no Shakespeare scholar and hope to hear from others on the Authorship question and the enclosed Sonnets.

Many of the Sonnets are personal, and make no sense in relation to what’s known about Wm Shaksper of Stratford. The poet writes as though he has been disgraced, is in middle-aged fear of death, and is engaged in a curious conversation with a rival poet and/or homosexual lover. (And some Sonnets refer almost specifically to a misnaming.)
Here’s a page which helps make a case that the Shakespeare writings suggest Oxford, rather than Shaksper, as the author

I intend to supply my own opinions in subsequent messages and encourage others to do the same. I hope Moderators then move the thread to Debates, Opinion, or the Pit, as appropriate.

Sonnet XXVI

Lord of my love, to whom in vassalage
Thy merit hath my duty strongly knit,
To thee I send this written embassage,
To witness duty, not to show my wit:
Duty so great, which wit so poor as mine
May make seem bare, in wanting words to show it,
But that I hope some good conceit of thine
In thy soul’s thought, all naked, will bestow it:
Till whatsoever star that guides my moving,
Points on me graciously with fair aspect,
And puts apparel on my tatter’d loving,
To show me worthy of thy sweet respect:
Then may I dare to boast how I do love thee;
Till then, not show my head where thou mayst prove me.

Sonnet XXXII

If thou survive my well-contented day,
When that churl Death my bones with dust shall cover
And shalt by fortune once more re-survey
These poor rude lines of thy deceased lover,
Compare them with the bett’ring of the time,
And though they be outstripp’d by every pen,
Reserve them for my love, not for their rhyme,
Exceeded by the height of happier men.
O! then vouchsafe me but this loving thought:
‘Had my friend’s Muse grown with this growing age,
A dearer birth than this his love had brought,
To march in ranks of better equipage:
But since he died and poets better prove,
Theirs for their style I’ll read, his for his love’.

Sonnet XXXVI “Let me confess that we two must be twain,”

Let me confess that we two must be twain,
Although our undivided loves are one:
So shall those blots that do with me remain,
Without thy help, by me be borne alone.
In our two loves there is but one respect,
Though in our lives a separable spite,
Which though it alter not love’s sole effect,
Yet doth it steal sweet hours from love’s delight.
I may not evermore acknowledge thee,
Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame,
Nor thou with public kindness honour me,
Unless thou take that honour from thy name:
But do not so, I love thee in such sort,
As thou being mine, mine is thy good report.

Sonnet XXXIX

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

Sonnet LV “You live in this, and dwell in lovers’ eyes.”

Not marble, nor the gilded monuments
Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme;
But you shall shine more bright in these contents
Than unswept stone, besmear’d with sluttish time.
When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
And broils root out the work of masonry,
Nor Mars his sword, nor war’s quick fire shall burn
The living record of your memory.
‘Gainst death, and all-oblivious enmity
Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
Even in the eyes of all posterity
That wear this world out to the ending doom.
So, till the judgment that yourself arise,
You live in this, and dwell in lovers’ eyes.

Sonnet LXII “Self so self-loving were iniquity.”

Sin of self-love possesseth all mine eye
And all my soul, and all my every part;
And for this sin there is no remedy,
It is so grounded inward in my heart.
Methinks no face so gracious is as mine,
No shape so true, no truth of such account;
And for myself mine own worth do define,
As I all other in all worths surmount.
But when my glass shows me myself indeed
Beated and chopp’d with tanned antiquity,
Mine own self-love quite contrary I read;
Self so self-loving were iniquity.
'Tis thee,–myself,–that for myself I praise,
Painting my age with beauty of thy days.

Sonnet LXXI “Do not so much as my poor name rehearse”

No longer mourn for me when I am dead
Than you shall hear the surly sullen bell
Give warning to the world that I am fled
From this vile world with vilest worms to dwell:
Nay, if you read this line, remember not
The hand that writ it, for I love you so,
That I in your sweet thoughts would be forgot,
If thinking on me then should make you woe.
O! if,–I say you look upon this verse,
When I perhaps compounded am with clay,
Do not so much as my poor name rehearse;
But let your love even with my life decay;
Lest the wise world should look into your moan,
And mock you with me after I am gone.

Sonnet LXXII “My name be buried where my body is”

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

Sonnet LXXVI “That every word doth almost tell my name”

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

Sonnet LXXX “To make me tongue-tied speaking of your fame!”

O! how I faint when I of you do write,
Knowing a better spirit doth use your name,
And in the praise thereof spends all his might,
To make me tongue-tied speaking of your fame!
But since your worth–wide as the ocean is,–
The humble as the proudest sail doth bear,
My saucy bark, inferior far to his,
On your broad main doth wilfully appear.
Your shallowest help will hold me up afloat,
Whilst he upon your soundless deep doth ride;
Or, being wrack’d, I am a worthless boat,
He of tall building, and of goodly pride:
Then if he thrive and I be cast away,
The worst was this,–my love was my decay.

Sonnet LXXXI “Your monument shall be my gentle verse”

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

Sonnet LXXXIII “Than both your poets can in praise devise.”

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

Sonnet LXXXIV

Who is it that says most, which can say more,
Than this rich praise,–that you alone, are you?
In whose confine immured is the store
Which should example where your equal grew.
Lean penury within that pen doth dwell
That to his subject lends not some small glory;
But he that writes of you, if he can tell
That you are you, so dignifies his story,
Let him but copy what in you is writ,
Not making worse what nature made so clear,
And such a counterpart shall fame his wit,
Making his style admired every where.
You to your beauteous blessings add a curse,
Being fond on praise, which makes your praises worse.

Sonnet LXXXIX

Say that thou didst forsake me for some fault,
And I will comment upon that offence:
Speak of my lameness, and I straight will halt,
Against thy reasons making no defence.
Thou canst not love disgrace me half so ill,
To set a form upon desired change,
As I’ll myself disgrace; knowing thy will,
I will acquaintance strangle, and look strange;
Be absent from thy walks; and in my tongue
Thy sweet beloved name no more shall dwell,
Lest I, too much profane, should do it wrong,
And haply of our old acquaintance tell.
For thee, against my self I’ll vow debate,
For I must ne’er love him whom thou dost hate.

Sonnet CV “Fair, kind, and true, have often liv’d alone”

Let not my love be call’d idolatry,
Nor my beloved as an idol show,
Since all alike my songs and praises be
To one, of one, still such, and ever so.
Kind is my love to-day, to-morrow kind,
Still constant in a wondrous excellence;
Therefore my verse to constancy confin’d,
One thing expressing, leaves out difference.
‘Fair, kind, and true,’ is all my argument,
‘Fair, kind, and true,’ varying to other words;
And in this change is my invention spent,
Three themes in one, which wondrous scope affords.
Fair, kind, and true, have often liv’d alone,
Which three till now, never kept seat in one.

Sonnet CVIII

What’s in the brain, that ink may character,
Which hath not figur’d to thee my true spirit?
What’s new to speak, what now 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 hallow’d thy fair name.
So that eternal love in love’s fresh case,
Weighs not the dust and injury of age,
Nor gives to necessary wrinkles place,
But makes antiquity for aye his page;
Finding the first conceit of love there bred,
Where time and outward form would show it dead.

Sonnet CXI

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

Sonnet CXVI

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me prov’d,
I never writ, nor no man ever lov’d.

Sonnet CXXXVI

If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy ‘Will’,
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there;
Thus far for love, my love-suit, sweet, fulfil.
‘Will’, will fulfil the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckon’d none:
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy store’s account I one must be;
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something sweet to thee:
Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
And then thou lov’st me for my name is ‘Will.’

Ben Jonson (“what Author would conceale his name?”):

Who takes thy volume to his vertuous hand,
Must be intended still to understand:
Who bluntly doth but looke upon the same,
May aske, what Author would conceale his name?
Who reads may roave, and call the passage darke,
Yet may as blind men sometimes hit the marke.
Who reads, who roaves, who hopes to understand,
May take thy volume to his vertuous hand.
Who cannot reade, but onely doth desire to understand,
Hee may at length admire.

I agree, Shaksper didn’t write any sonnets or plays. Now Shakespeare is another matter…

So, from the beginning, you admit you haven’t actually researched the question. Not a good place to start.

How do you know they’re personal? How much study have you put into Shakespeare’s life? Oh, wait, you admitted you haven’t.

Yes, this is known as imagination. You see, a writer often takes on the persona of a fictional character for dramatic effect. I once wrote a story that convinced one of the readers I was a 13-year-old girl. I’m not.

In addition, these are just interpretations of literature. You can just as easily prove that Shakespeare was a Martian or even Bill Buckner if you use the poems for evidence.

The biggest problem with the claims that anyone else wrote Shakespeare is that, in all these years, no one has ever actually produced any* actual evidence* to back up the claim.

Interpreting poems isn’t evidence.
Saying, “Shakespeare couldn’t know that” or “He couldn’t have felt that way” is not evidence – it’s mind reading.
Objecting to minor points about Shakespeare (usually with limited knowledge of him) is not disproving anything.

I guarantee that, whatever interpretation you choose for any of the sonnets, I can come up with a different one that “proves” something completely absurd about him. It’s all a game (and, I admit, it can be fun), but it’s not anything that can remotely be called “proof.”

I blame the Romantics for all this nonsense about poetic narrators necessarily being a reflection of the poet’s life and experience.

This almost smells like homework help.

Along the same lines, I have my doubts that Johnny Cash wrote Folsom Prison Blues. I mean, Johnny Cash writes as though he’s been disgraced and has been imprisoned for essentially the rest of his life. Now clearly we know that can’t be the case since he was never in prison and he certainly never killed a man in Reno just to watch him die. I don’t know what to make of this, except the only logical conclusion–Cash didn’t write the song! How could he even imagine being so lonesome in prison with nothing but the train to listen for? It gets even more suspicious when you compare it to other, earlier country songs–specifically ones about trains and ones about prison. Surely with other song writers (especially people like Hank Williams) writing on these themes, Johnny Cash would never waste his time?

Seriously though, it’s kind of a waste of time to try to read something and make assumptions about the writer’s life based on that. The speaker in the Sonnets is not necessarily Shakespeare. There’s been a lot of claims that the writer we call Shakespeare is really somebody else, but nobody has ever been able to prove it because you need to have more solid proof than “The speaker in the Sonnet doesn’t sound like what I think I know of the author.”

Do we really need spoiler tags for Shakespearean sonnets?

Hamlet dies!

Neither do most of the plays. This is a ludicrous argument.

Are you lumping all 150-odd sonnets together here? Just like identifying the speaker with the author, this does not make sense and it doesn’t promote a good understanding of the writing. I know more about the plays than the sonnets, but the sonnets were not all written at the same time and they arguably had different intended audiences.

He died before Shakespeare’s career ended. Although I guess if you want to argue he wrote only the sonnets and not Shakespeare’s plays, that’s not a big problem for you.

This is probably the best place for this thread.

I’m not sure if you’re kidding here, but this spelling is often used to distinguish between the author of the plays [Shakespeare] and the historical person [Shakesper] by people who think the Earl of Oxford or Francis Bacon or Queen Elizabeth or a time-traveling alien might have written the plays attributed to Shakespeare. I think it’s based on one of the few known instances of Shakespeare’s name appearing in a historical record, maybe a court case.

No. But it does make the OP a lot shorter.

It’s interesting to note that the people who claim that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare are professional professors of English and literary history, who study the entire literature of the day using professional tools that most of the public isn’t even aware exist. All the people who doubt that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare are amateurs who come into the field from elsewhere and prove that they don’t know how to do a professional study of authorship.

Just saying.

The sonnets were published without attribution (and perhaps without Shakespeare’s approval). The line does not imply that someone besides Shakespeare wrote the sonnets.

May I rhetorically respond, “what author who was already using a pseudonym would then feel the need to hide the pseudonym when publishing a particular set of works?”

Damn you!

It’s just a sleeping potion, not poison!

Well, it’s not like that stopped V.C. Andrews or Robert Ludlum.

The three witches’ statements are all true, but Macbeth didn’t interpret them quite right.

** Smeghead**, I love your spoiler.

Didn’t know that. I was wondering why I was the only person making fun of the OP’s spelling.

Oh, I’ll join you. People spelled their own names in various ways back then. Any Elizabethan scholar would know that. Any ‘Shakespeare wasn’t Shakespeare’ scholar (that is, somebody who has a Ph.D.) and espouses the spelling difference as evidence is intentionally misrepresenting. Presenting what you know is not good evidence because you know it will fool a lot of people isn’t cool. I’m not accusing septimus of intentional deception, but Charlton Ogburn and the like.

I plan to add my own (longish) comments about the Authorship “mystery” to this thread, but first let me answer some of the initial questions.

I’ve read (pro-Stratford) biographies, several plays, most of the Sonnets, and, on the Authorship question, some magazine articles and by now, 4 dozen webpages or so. My threshold for calling myself “knowledgeable” may be higher than others expect. Sorry if this caused confusion.

Very little is known of Shaksper’s life. Some biographical claims used to argue for a Stratfordian authorship, use circular reasoning, e.g.:
“One weakpoint in the Stratford theory is that the playwright demonstrates superb legal knowledge.”
– No problem! It says right here in one of his biographies that Shakespeare probably worked in a law office.
“Oh! What’s the evidence for that?”
– Errr … it’s deduced from some of his writing. :smack:

By the way, as someone else pointed out, I use the spelling common in Stratford “Shaksper” rather than the spelling common to the writings “Shake-speare” not as a piece of evidence against the Stratfordian authorship, but simply to refer unambiguously to the Man from Stratford. (“Shakespeare” is often intended to mean the Sonnets’ author, whatever his true name.)

When I present my opinions I won’t argue that any case is “proved”; indeed I’m almost as skeptical of an Oxfordian authorship as of a Stratfordian authorship.

Instead one weighs the evidence using Bayesian methods. The link I provided, along with some of the Sonnets (including many that I didn’t quote), do seem bizarre given what is known of Shaksper. Without speaking of “proof”, do you deny the bizarrity?

The provenance of the Sonnets and their dedication are mysterious and, while not “proof”, also argue against a Stratfordian authorship. I’ll argue this in a later message.

Perhaps it was lazy to ask Cafe Society people, rather than Google, to help me understand some of these Sonnets! But as to “homework” … my schooling days are in the past…

It just seemed like a way to condense the post, which may still have been over-long. Sorry.

A charge often leveled against anti-Stratfordians is that they’re “elitist.” Who’s being elitish here?

Without impugning any Doper, I’ve seen many object to an anti-Stratfordian view and then make clear they’re unacquainted with relevant evidence! I hope in this thread we can look at specific evidence without “broad brush stroke” dismissals that the evidence isn’t worth examination!

:confused: :confused: :confused: Here’s the wikipedia page for the Sonnets. To save you a click, the cover reads “Shake-speare’s Sonnets. Never before imprinted.”

I’ve never seen that happen. Is this an actual example? Because I’ve never heard anyone say Shakespeare must’ve had legal training.

Not at all.

It’s not elitist if your view is supported by the best evidence and the people with the most knowledge.

To add more info to the “Shaksper” thing, we have 6 of Shakespeare’s signature, and he never spelled it the same way twice. The surviving examples are: “Willm Shaksp,” “William Shakespe,” “Wm Shakspe,” “William Shakspere,” Willm Shakspere," and “William Shakspeare” (From “Shakespeare, the World as Stage” by Bill Bryson). Obviously some of the variation comes from shortening for expediency (e.g. “Willm,” “Wm,” “Shaksp,” “Shakespe,” and “Shakspe”), but still there are the “Shak-” “Shake-” variations and the “-pere” “-peare” variations.

You’ll notice that none of them are the standard “Shakespeare” or the “Shaksper” used by OP. You will find both variations in print though. In the case of the “Shakespeare” spelling, it is the version used in the First Folio edition of his complete works, which was the first “official” printed version of his plays. Hence, presumably, our use of that spelling.

This bears repeating. I don’t think the anti-Stratford crowd have ever been taken seriously by serious academic scholars.

The OP says he’s read “(pro-Stratford) biographies, several plays, most of the Sonnets, and, on the Authorship question, some magazine articles and by now, 4 dozen webpages.” You do understand that Shakespeare scholars spend decades poring over volumes and volumes of research - not only every single one of the sonnets and plays, but even the most mundane legal documents that contain even a mention of his name. The vast majority of anti-Strafordians are not Shakespeare scholars.