The Holder of this blog uses no cookies and collects no data whatsoever. He is only a guest on the Blogger platform. He has made no agreements concerning third party data collection and is not provided the opportunity to know the data collection policies of any of the standard blogging applications associated with the host platform. For information regarding the data collection policies of Facebook applications used on this blog contact Facebook. For information about the practices regarding data collection on the part of the owner of the Blogger platform contact Google Blogger.

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Shakespeare's sugred Sonnets among his private friends.

Back yet again plowing through the vast literature relating to the sonnets of Shakespeare I am introduced to a fine (relatively) new paper “Some Manuscripts of Shakespeare's Sonnets” by Gary Taylor. “Alone among Shakespeare's works,” he informs us,

the sonnets were not intended for immediate publication or public performance, but for private circulation. In 1598 Francis Meres praised Shakespeare's "sugred sonnets among his priuate friends". Consequently, we know that some sonnets circulated in manuscript at least eleven years before the Quarto edition of SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS was published in 1609. No autograph manuscripts have yet been found, but a number of transcripts from the first half of the seventeenth century survive.1

His Meres quote comes from the pamphlet Palladis Tamia.2

As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras: so the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and hony-tongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private friends, &c.

Taylor's observation leads me back to an old and interesting question. One I have not heard mentioned much — or not at all.

It is also the data provided by Taylor that gives us our first bit of context.

ignoring temporarily the texts of [Sonnet 2], only three sonnets survive in manuscripts which are not demonstrably derivative of the printed texts: Sonnets 8 (B.L. Add. MS. 15226), 106 (Pierpont Morgan MA 1057 and Rosenbach 1083116) and 128 (Bodleian, Rawl. poet. 152). In total, then, [counting the 13 texts of Sonnet 2] we possess 16 texts of individual sonnets which may be independent of the printed tradition, and these 16 texts occur in 16 different miscellanies. This pattern of distribution would be difficult to explain if the sonnets had circulated in manuscript as a sequence; it strongly suggests, instead, that they circulated as individual poems.3

Those who have read my studies on the subject know that I do not recognize the 1609 sonnets as a sequence at all. They were collected together (likely by the “begetter”) and arranged into topic groupings by the “begetter” or the publisher.

None of this revives my old question, though. That question is “Why are there no surviving manuscript copies before the early years of the 17th century?” If they circulated among his private friends, how is it that none of the apparently numerous manuscript pages inferred by Meres seem to have survived? I do not mean to imply anything suspicious by the question.

I do not understand Meres' information to have been anything more than literary gossip that he heard at third-hand and passed along. Person or persons, then, told Meres, no later than 1598 (and likely earlier), that manuscript copies of Shakespeare's sonnets were shared among his private friends. We are not aware that any of the copies survive. All that do survive are dated after Meres' PT.

As was always the case in manuscript copies, each surviving copy is at least slightly different than the others. Each provides us a variant. Those variants are among the finest clues a literary detective might have. No such clues have been found from before Meres' informed us of their existence.

Now, we do not know that any of Meres' referenced sonnets appeared some 11 years later in the 1609 edition of Shakespeare's Sonnets. But it is difficult to believe that somehow, from all of (1) the 1609 sonnets, (2) the sonnets embedded in the plays, and (3) those pirated into The Passionate Pilgrim (1598) only those had been passed around that are extant in 17th century private collections. It is equally difficult to believe that some “begetter” managed to collect all of the Shakespeare sonnets that existed in all the private manuscript collections in England.

What does seem safe to say is that the sonnets of 1609 came from the final drafts held by Edward de Vere/Shakespeare upon his death and/or were gathered by polling his friends for copies of whatever of his sonnets they might possess. The manuscript sonnets extant in 17th century private collections fall under one or both of two categories. (1) They are later copies taken from earlier drafts of the sonnets that appeared in the 1609 publication; and/or (2) they are imperfect copies that include transcription errors.

Notably, the manuscript drafts extant in 17th century private collections include titles. We do not know whether the Vere / Shakespeare copies included titles. It seems unlikely that the majority did. The titles of the Sonnet 2 manuscripts, however, show a definite pattern. The possessors understood the poem to have been written to encourage an unnamed noble woman to bring forth an heir.

The reader may be aware that I have identified Edward de Vere, in my Shakespeare in 15734, as the young courtier who wrote the poems (many Shakespearean sonnets) under the moniker Fortunatus Infoelix (F.I.) in the 1573 anthology An Hundreth Sundrie Flowers. The anthology contains numerous references to its poems having been passed around among the courtiers and gathered into a manuscript book prior to publication. The poems generally have simple descriptive titles such as an editor might supply. I am not aware that any of the manuscript versions of any of the poems or plays has survived either.

In my Discovered: A New Shakespeare Sonnet5 I have identified three more in the anthology section of Syr P.S. His Astrophel and Stella. Wherein the excellence of sweete poesie is concluded. To the end of which are added, sundry other rare sonnets of divers noble men and gentlemen (1591). Here the clear implication is that Thomas Nashe, who wrote the introduction to the book, published without permission quite a number of the manuscript poems he possessed from exchanges with his drinking buddies Samuel Daniel, Edward de Vere and others, some which were attributed elsewhere to Vere and some which were anonymous Shakespearean sonnets exactly matching the traits of Shakespeare and work then underway on Shakespeare's poem Venus and Adonis. None of the poems has a title.

Primarily, the canonical sonnets of Shakespeare will provide our text in the essays ahead. The poems of F.I., and the anonymous sonneteer will come into play from time to time as appropriate.




1 Taylor Gary. “Some Manuscripts of Shakespeare's Sonnets”. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. Volume 68: Issue 1 (1985). 210- 245.

2 Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamia. Elizabethan Critical Essays (Gregory Smith ed., 1904). 308-324@317.

3 Taylor, 225.

4 Purdy, Gilbert Wesley. Shakespeare in 1573: Apprenticeship and Scandal (2021). https://www.amazon.com/dp/B096GSQV14

5 Purdy, Gilbert Wesley. Discovered: A New Shakespeare Sonnet (or three, actually)(2015). https://www.amazon.com/Discovered-Shakespeare-Sonnet-three-actually/dp/1514750406/



Also at Virtual Grub Street:


1 comment:

rroffel said...

Thank you for another insightful piece on the sonnets. I agree with you and Dr. Taylor that the sonnets in the 1609 quarto do not comprise a coherent sequence of poems. Your discovery that they are arranged by topic is interesting in that the evidence is hidden in plain sight. So many scholars have created a love triangle (and more) out of the poems that it boggles the mind why the poet would have created such a complex narrative out of so many small, yet simple, poems.

I believe that there was another organizing principle behind the sequence: the number 17. The editor of the quarto probably thought long about how to organize the poems while at the same time giving readers hints who the real author was, either by numbering the poems or by inserting simple gematria puzzles into them.

The theory that Sonnet 2 was addressed to a woman puts a whole new slant on the quarto. What if some of the poems addressed to a "dark lady" were addressed either to either of de Vere's wives or his youngest daughter Susan? And what if scholars had misread them all along, thinking they were addressed to Southampton?

You always have insight into the hard bard's work and the times he lived in which adds so much to the authorship question. Keep on blogging!