Dating Edward de Vere’s Sonnet 110 + 1

I have more than once stated that Shakespeare’s Sonnets appear clearly to have been arranged by theme rather than chronology.  While I remain confident on that point, it is likely that some sonnets share the same theme because they addressed the same occasion.  They seem to have been grouped both by theme and chronologically.

Last week I revived my argument, here, first presented in my Edward de Vere was Shakespeare: at long last the proof, for Shakespeare Sonnet 110 being De Vere’s reaction to having been outed in Francis Mere’s PalladisTamia.  The Palladis was the first book to mention Shakespeare as a playwright.  Before then the name had only appeared on title pages as the poet of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.  Meres’s book having been entered for publication in the rolls of the Stationers’ Company in September of 1598 would establish a likely date of late 1598 for the sonnet.

By itself, the sonnet is not particularly strong evidence for the authorship of Edward de Vere, the 17^th Earl of Oxford.  Between my books Edward de Vere was Shakespeare and Was Shakespeare Gay: what do the sonnets really say?, however, I provide surprisingly close direct parallels from the life of De Vere for well over 20 of the sonnets.  I have added a provenance for Sonnet 33 in a short essay here at Virtual Grub Street.  It is the pattern that amounts to evidence more than any individual sonnet.  Indirect parallels apply to most of the others.

Sonnets 110 and 111 are two that fit together chronologically as well as thematically.  By 1589, the lands of the Earldom of Oxford had been put under the control of De Vere’s father-in-law William Cecil, the Queen’s Treasurer and closest advisor, in order to save them from being sold by the deeply indebted Earl for ready money.  By late 1598, Edward de Vere had long been applying to the Queen, who once so favored him, for various posts, monopolies, and lands.  In one instance he had a strong legal claim to a post for which he repeatedly petitioned for years.  The Queen ignored his requests and forbade the matter to be heard in the courts.  His applications were forwarded through his brother-in-law Robert Cecil.  Though he clearly felt that Cecil might not be all the ally he presented himself to be, the Earl strictly obeyed the courteous forms of address required in such matters.  He returned again and again to Cecil realizing that he had no better agent to bring his requests before the Queen.

This being the case, it is not difficult to understand why Sonnet 111 makes the excuse it does for having become  playwright, a “public man”:

111

O for my sake doe you wish fortune chide,

The guiltie goddesse of my harmfull deeds,

That did not better for my life prouide,

Then publick meanes which publick manners breeds.

Fortune (a woman in classical mythology) is the reason he has lowered himself to writing for the stage.  Had she provided him the means to be noble he would never have had to lower himself.  De Vere’s letters courteously include a sense of the injustice of his treatment at the hands of his goddess, the Queen.

I did not choose to address Sonnet 111 in Edward de Vere was Shakespeare, however, for one reason.  I have been determined not to assign sonnets until I felt confident who was the intended recipient.  It is not clear to whom the sonnet was written.

…

Thence comes it that my name receiues a brand,

And almost thence my nature is subdu'd

To what it workes in, like the Dyers hand,

Pitty me then, and wish I were renu'de,

Whilst like a willing pacient I will drinke,

Potions of Eysell gainst my strong infection,

No bitternesse that I will bitter thinke,

Nor double pennance to correct correction.

Pittie me then deare friend, and I assure yee,

Euen that your pittie is enough to cure mee.

Who is the “dear friend”?  I am not able to answer with confidence.  Other similar sonnets were written to De Vere’s “fair friend” the Queen who seems to have received at least some of them with appreciation.  But it is difficult to believe that her tenuous attachment to her sonneteer would have suggested to De Vere that he could send her such a poem.  It seems it would have to have been someone that De Vere could be confident would not betray it to the Queen or Cecil.

I have presented the argument against more than a very few of the sonnets having been written to Southampton.  By 1598-99, William Herbert would have been a regular in the London theater district and negotiating with William Cecil for the hand of De Vere’s daughter Bridget.  De Vere’s daughter Elizabeth had been married for some time to William Stanley, the Earl of Derby, also an anonymous playwright.  I can’t see that there is enough evidence to say for sure.

Perhaps the strongest likelihood is that the sonnet was addressed to whomever would “pittie” him, as the anonymous author of a sonnet, for having had to make shift.

• Dating Edward de Vere's Sonnet 110. May 21, 2018. “Shake-speare the poet was now Shake-speare writer for the common stage.  Those who knew he was The Bard, but only knew him as the poet, now knew that he was the person who had written the plays,…”
• A Poem by Mr. W.H. August 27, 2017. "We haue no newes but that there is a misfortune befiallen Mistris Fitton,‘ for she is proved with chyld, and the E. of Pembrooke beinge examyned confesseth a ffact, but vtterly renounceth all marriage."
• Shake-speare's Greek.  May 08, 2014.  "It is not at all clear from Jonson’s limited comments on Shakespeare, throughout his life, whether he was aware that the Bard may have actually translated a Greek text popular for many centuries."
• Check out the English Renaissance Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.