tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post1754202607834235187..comments2024-03-05T10:34:30.182-05:00Comments on The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: Our Ever-Living Poet: A Personal Interpretation of the Title Page of Shake-speare's Sonnets by Isabel GortázarUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-57654013155389335892011-03-19T11:04:45.067-04:002011-03-19T11:04:45.067-04:00For R. Mena:
"Thus: THESE.SONNETS.ALL.BY.VERE...For R. Mena:<br />"Thus: THESE.SONNETS.ALL.BY.VERE.THE.FORTH"<br /><br />As well as sharing the opinions of my colleagues in this discussion, I have yet one more question for Oxfordians: <br /><br />If Edward de Vere was the Queen's son, his "real" name was not VERE, that being the name of his putative, not his biological, father.<br /><br />If the whole point of all those codes and ciphers was to allow the secret of his life, including his royal descent, to be revealed in the centuries to come, why would he have used a name that was not really his own as the basis for decoding the codes?Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-3667733062107068112011-03-10T05:41:34.645-05:002011-03-10T05:41:34.645-05:00All to the classic Oxfordian 6.2.4 "solution&...All to the classic Oxfordian 6.2.4 "solution" to the Sonnets dedication, two points sprint immediately to mind. <br /><br />1.The fifth word one pulls out is not 'Vere', it is 'Ever'. I appreciate that to an Oxfordian every single occurrence of 'ever' or 'every' is taken as an anagram for your candidate but 'ever' is such a common and useful word you must forgive us for being somewhat sceptical of your claim and suggesting that the actual meaning of the words - Ever-living - was the reason the author of the inscription chose them.<br /><br />2. A code-cracking key that necessitates the code-breaker knowing the answer before they can receive confirmation of that answer is no code-cracking key at all. You must 'know' that the author of the Sonnets is "Edward de Vere" before you can apply the letters of his name and receive the answer the the author of the Sonnets is ... "Edward de Vere". Point me towards any other cipher system in which the key and the message are the same and, again, I will give you a bag of sweets. <br /><br />Confirmation bias is a function of human neurology and none of us can escape it, but we should at least be aware of it and try to extricate ourselves from examples of circular reasoning as blatant as this one.Ros Barberhttp://www.rosbarber.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-76597580551086913282011-03-10T05:27:14.557-05:002011-03-10T05:27:14.557-05:00Ricardo, you say:
'If Marlowe was Shake--spea...Ricardo, you say:<br /><br />'If Marlowe was Shake--speare, then how can it be that "Dido, queen of Carthage", is about Oxford and Southampton legitimacy?<br />I have written the essay myself, and would very much appreciate your comments on it.'<br /><br />Just because you say that Dido is about Oxford and Southampton legitimacy ("I have written the essay myself") doesn't mean that it is. Find any appropriately educated scholar who shares your opinion and I'll give you a bag of sweets.<br /><br />Dido was written by Marlowe because Nashe says it was. And we have proper primary source evidence testifying that Nashe and Marlowe were friends (the Nashe-Harvey quarrel).<br /><br />If you really want our comments on your essay (I don't think you do)I will happily contribute mine: it is complete made-up nonsense. You have built a marvellous mansion on sand and without foundation. <br /><br />If Oxford wrote any these great works, tell me how did he allow such drivel to be published under his own name? <br /><br />And answer Peter Farey's question relating to the post-1604 cannon, if you please: http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2009/09/questions-all-oxfordians-must-answer-by.htmlRosBarberhttp://www.rosbarber.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-40277842709830889632011-03-09T20:16:12.881-05:002011-03-09T20:16:12.881-05:00Again, I had these questions:
Marlowe dissapeare...Again, I had these questions:<br /><br />Marlowe dissapeared in 1593.<br /><br />So did Robert Brooke in 1569 when "he" wrote "The tragedy of Romeus and Juliet".<br /><br />So did Lyly when he left Oxford's position as secretary.<br /><br />So did Robert Greene in his flamboyant passing moment in 1593.<br /><br />So did Marlowe in 1593.<br /><br />So did Edmund Spencer in 1598 when not even his wife and children seem to have been taken care of by the nobility of London.<br /><br />One question: in the Sonnets dedication there are full stops. Weird. Ok. Edward.De.Vere has these words: 6.2.4.<br /><br />Now, select the sixth word: you have "These".<br /><br />Select the second next: "Sonnets".<br /><br />Select the forth next: "All".<br /><br />Select the sixth again: "By".<br /><br />Select the second next: "Vere".<br /><br />Select the forth next: "The".<br /><br />Select the sixth next: "Forth".<br /><br />Thus: THESE.SONNETS.ALL.BY.VERE.THE.FORTH<br /><br />If you see the signature of Oxford in Charles Beauclerk's book about Shakespeare, you will see that he signed with a crown, not a coronet, with 7 dashes, as future king to follow forth against Elizabeth.Ricardo Menahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17259219923499242259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-75503709595808455682011-03-09T19:51:39.247-05:002011-03-09T19:51:39.247-05:00If Marlowe was Shake--speare, then how can it be t...If Marlowe was Shake--speare, then how can it be that "Dido, queen of Carthage", is about Oxford and Southampton legitimacy?<br /><br />I have written the essay myself, and would very much appreciate your comments on it.<br /><br />My essay is at:<br /><br />http://shakespearemelodijo.blogspot.com/2011/01/ensayo-1-eliza-queen-of-carthage_5003.htmlRicardo Menahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17259219923499242259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-5480059798366384982011-01-24T02:07:08.207-05:002011-01-24T02:07:08.207-05:00Since my curiousity was aroused by this subject, I...Since my curiousity was aroused by this subject, I went to archive.org and read a very long, very boring book called "An Anthology of Elizabethan Dedications and Prefaces," which was published in 1933. I was hoping to find some work dedicated to the eldest son of a peer, and see what form of address was employed. I was unsuccessful, but in the course of my research (if it can be called that), I discovered that William Herbert was a Master Mason. If Thorpe was also a Mason, he might have addressed Herbert as "Master" in that sense. There are many people who believe that Marlowe was connected with the Masons. I also found a very striking similarity between the dedication of Shakespeare's Sonnets and the dedication of a pamphlet called "A Good Speed to Virginia," which was published just a few weeks earlier. Don't know if this is of any significance, but I found it interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-90491492990588652152011-01-18T11:52:00.909-05:002011-01-18T11:52:00.909-05:00Yes OK, Isabel.
As long as you understand that by...Yes OK, Isabel.<br /><br />As long as you understand that by continuing to argue about such matters we must inevitably learn things we didn't know before, whereas by yet again accepting your "agree to disagree" formula neither of us, nor any of our readers, has a chance of learning anything new.<br /><br />I await your Part Two with considerable apprehension!<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-44114921324103392402011-01-17T15:49:15.129-05:002011-01-17T15:49:15.129-05:00Agree to disagree again, Peter?
Never mind, it get...Agree to disagree again, Peter?<br />Never mind, it gets worse.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-40817248634606860662011-01-17T09:55:13.217-05:002011-01-17T09:55:13.217-05:00No I'm sorry, Isabel, it would not have been a...No I'm sorry, Isabel, it would not have been appropriate. The appropriate way for a poet to address the son and heir of the Earl of Pembroke in such a dedication (and given no reason at all for hiding the young lord's identity) would have been "William Lord Herbert", possibly also "of Cardiff". Had the poet been a tutor for him (for which there is of course no evidence) he might possibly have referred to him <b>informally</b> as "young master William", maybe even as just "master William", but never as "master William Herbert" and certainly not as either "Mr." nor "W.H.". The OED provides no exception to what I say here, and I am quite sure that you won't be able to find one either.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-14270679193842543732011-01-17T08:17:00.680-05:002011-01-17T08:17:00.680-05:00Peter:
I’d say b) does describe a similar situatio...Peter:<br />I’d say b) does describe a similar situation: (b) applied, esp. by servants, to the sons of noble families or of the gentry (usu. in little master, (my) young master; sometimes without modifier as a form of address) (now arch.)<br /><br />A tutor, or similar, would have been considered a servant of sorts. The OED is misleading; the word “servant” does not, to modern ears, include qualified “servants” such as lawyers, tutors, clerks, chaplains, etc. <br /><br />The "retinue" of a nobleman when traveling, for example, would include all sorts of "servants" of this kind. Whatever role Marlowe played in a relationship between himself and William Herbert, he would be expected to maintain a servant's distance, so Master would be appropriate.<br /><br />The fact that there are no examples in literature previous to Dickens does not really prove the epithet was not used, particularly if the usage is maintained in Scotland.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-80012611230969287872011-01-17T04:39:14.941-05:002011-01-17T04:39:14.941-05:00daver852 said...
"When we moderns see the ab...daver852 said... <br />"When we moderns see the abbreviation "Mr." we automatically assume it stands for "mister." But couldn't it stand for "master" instead?"<br /><br />I must confess that I had always assumed that it meant "master", not even being sure that the word "mister" as such even existed as a different word at that time. I see from the OED that it did, however, as "A title of courtesy prefixed to the surname or first name of a man without a higher, honorific, or professional title."<br /><br />daver852 said...<br />"As William Herbert had not attained his majority by 1597, it would have been entirely proper in Elizabethan times to address him as Master William Herbert."<br /><br />The only OED definition of "master" which might support this is "22.a. With reference to a boy or a young man. (a) Applied [subsequent to the phonetic separation of mister n.2] as a prefix to the name of a boy or young man not considered old enough to be called 'Mr.'; (b) applied, esp. by servants, to the sons of noble families or of the gentry (usu. in little master, (my) young master; sometimes without modifier as a form of address) (now arch.); (c) a person addressed as 'master' in this sense; a boy, a young man (now rare)."<br /><br />(a) Would apply only if "Mister" would have been appropriate in the first place, which we have seen not to be so.<br />(b) Doesn't really describe a similar situation, and the earliest example of Master followed by <b>both</b> names was not until 1775.<br />(c) Earliest example is in Dickens. <br /><br />daver852 said...<br />"To this day, the heir of a Scottish earl is addressed as 'master'." <br /><br />Indeed he is. Debrett has a whole section on it, and the OED has "21. Used as a title by the male heir apparent or presumptive to a Scottish peerage; usu. with 'of' and the specific title of the family." It looks as though in Scotland they used the word as "Lord" was used (e.g. by William Herbert) in England.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-67130781959064527262011-01-16T17:50:09.506-05:002011-01-16T17:50:09.506-05:00Absolutely, daver852. Thank you for your comment.
...Absolutely, daver852. Thank you for your comment.<br /><br /> I had thought of the possibility of the MR meaning "Master" but I felt unsure.<br /><br />After Peter’s objections, I reconsidered the matter and changed Mister for Master in the second half of the essay, which I hope to finish within the next couple of days. Your comment is reassuring.<br /><br />Thanks again.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-27217549987707915972011-01-16T14:50:16.820-05:002011-01-16T14:50:16.820-05:00Isabel and Peter, this is a most interesting debat...Isabel and Peter, this is a most interesting debate! I hope it isn't presumptuous of me to venture an opinion. When we moderns see the abbreviation "Mr." we automatically assume it stands for "mister." But couldn't it stand for "master" instead? As William Herbert had not attained his majority by 1597, it would have been entirely proper in Elizabethan times to address him as Master William Herbert. To this day, the heir of a Scottish earl is addressed as "master."daver852https://www.blogger.com/profile/06067533090226229731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-13233879940531347992011-01-13T10:48:56.637-05:002011-01-13T10:48:56.637-05:00Peter:
Thank you for your generous words. if my es...Peter:<br />Thank you for your generous words. if my essay has been of any use to you, I am glad; your work has often been of great use to me.<br /><br />I honestly think we should stop the argument now and get with other things.<br /><br />My comment "Wishing the best of luck to some adventurer on his setting forth" , is misleading, and perhaps I should modify that for the future, as I actually believe (and propose) the well-wishing adventurer to be Thorpe.<br /><br />I will send The WWA to the blog asap, and await the INSVING wrangle between us with courage and a double dose of Vitamins.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-47211444746756920192011-01-13T06:23:41.554-05:002011-01-13T06:23:41.554-05:00Isabel,
If you really don't want to contin...Isabel, <br /> <br />If you really don't want to continue the discussion that's OK, although I find our disagreements immensely helpful, and come away from this one with a very much clearer (and new) understanding of just what the epigraph is all about. In particular, you have forced me to reconsider such things as the reasons for the words 'onlie' and 'insving' which I had certainly been guilty of glossing over or actually ignoring before. So thank you.<br /> <br />I therefore very much look forward to reading your ideas on the "well-wishing adventurer" whether I accept them or not. Just to clarify one thing though. My remark concerning it referred only to your having already said that the dedication is "Wishing the best of luck to some adventurer on his setting forth" when the adventurer seems fairly clearly to be the subject rather than the object of the verb "wisheth". I was in no way meaning to prejudge what your actual interpretation will be.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-14428050906862429302011-01-12T17:44:24.278-05:002011-01-12T17:44:24.278-05:00Peter:
I am bewildered too. Not for the first time...Peter:<br />I am bewildered too. Not for the first time, alas, I find our minds process the very same information in opposite ways, to reach opposite results.<br /><br />Let me repeat this for the last time:<br /><br />I don't believe Mr WH is the author because the author is Shake-speare, Our Ever Living Poet. <br />I have agreed that it might have been impertinent to address William Herbert in 1597 as Mister; but that would only lead me to try and find some other suitable addressee, such as William Hall, the Master Printer, to take his place, but not for a split second to accept that Mr WH was Marlowe.<br /><br />I don't believe the appellation "only begetter" in this context means the author, because the word "only" qualifies the word "begetter" in a way that practically opposes its normal meaning; in rhetorical terms, "the only begetter" would be almost by definition someone different from "the begetter".<br /><br />Since you have not read my interpretation of the second part, The Well-Wishing Adventurer, (not that I expect you to accept it) you shouldn't waste your time telling me I am mistaken about it yet.<br /><br /> It was helpful to see the results of your research on the titles, even if I don't find it conclusive, but it will lead me to do more research on this specific matter. <br /><br />Apart from that, I don't think it serves any purpose to continue with this discussion, so once again we must agree to disagree.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-58171000911493764402011-01-12T11:17:22.594-05:002011-01-12T11:17:22.594-05:00Isabel,
I'm bewildered.
We know that in d...Isabel, <br /><br />I'm bewildered.<br /> <br />We know that in dedications at that time the conceit that an author's works were his "children" was widely known, understood, and used. The author was therefore the "father", "sire", "parent" or "begetter", and patrons were "godfathers" or "foster parents" etc. Yet you prefer to ignore this.<br /> <br />In contrast with every other significant authorship candidate, the "begetter" being referred to "Mr.W.H." need cause no difficulty for Marlovians, since Marlowe's new identity may well have had those initials. In fact the Sonnets already suggest that (quite apart from his "Will Shakespeare" front) his own first name was also now Will. There was also a William Hall whom Sam has identified as a possible *nom de guerre* of Marlowe's before and after 1593. Yet you prefer to ignore this.<br /> <br />As we have now seen, the appellation "Mr. W.H." would have been highly impertinent for either Southampton or Pembroke, whether it was used on their 17th birthday or in 1609. Yet you apparently prefer to ignore it. <br /> <br />As Foster found, the syntactical order of the epigraph is most unusual, having "To [the addressee], happiness and eternity wishes [the epistler]," rather than the usual "To [the addressee], [the epistler] wishes happiness and eternity." The effect of this is make it appear that the "well-wishing adventurer" is "T.T." (even though the use of the words "adventurer setting forth" in this context are quite inappropriate) whilst still allowing it not to have been him. Yet you prefer to ignore this. <br /> <br />We know that within only a few days of "Shake-speares Sonnets" appearing on the bookstalls the nine ships of the Virginia Company's "third supply" set sail for America. The Earls of Southampton and Pembroke (both of whom have been proposed as the "fair youth" of the Sonnets) were the first two names on the list of its Council members, appointed as adventurers "whether they goe in their persons to be planters there in the said plantacion, or whether they goe not, but doe adventure their monyes, goods or chattels". Yet you prefer to ignore this.<br /> <br />The syntax of the epigraph make it quite clear that the subject of the verb "wisheth" is the "well-wishing adventurer", but from what you have said earlier you prefer to ignore this. <br /> <br />It is understandable why Marlovians may like the idea of "our ever-living poet" being Marlowe, but this is not the only possible answer, with both God and Ovid being just as likely meanings. Yet you prefer to ignore this. <br /> <br />I have suggested a single interpretation which either makes use of or explains every one of these issues, in which "T.T." (Thomas Thorpe) is dedicating the volume to the only author of the poems on behalf of the "well-wishing adventurer" who was the addressee of most of them. You apparently prefer to ignore this too.<br /><br />As I said, I'm bewildered!<br /> <br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-8311820508295470672011-01-11T14:06:55.547-05:002011-01-11T14:06:55.547-05:00If that is the case, Peter, then it would have bee...If that is the case, Peter, then it would have been an impertinence on the part of both Marlowe and Thorpe to call him Mr WH. <br /><br />That said, I still prefer the impertinent solution to the proposal that Mr WH is meant to be the author.<br /><br />I have another possible candidate but need permission from my "informer" to disclose it and work on the hypothesis. <br /><br />Otherwise I find "impertinence" the lesser evil.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-71748739422577647312011-01-11T06:03:39.291-05:002011-01-11T06:03:39.291-05:00Isabel,
Two more pieces of evidence which I thin...Isabel, <br /><br />Two more pieces of evidence which I think must clinch it.<br /><br />In the DNB entry for his grandfather the First Earl, another William, we find: "In 1551 he was made lord lieutenant for all the Welsh counties, and it was far from inappropriate that having been ennobled as Baron Herbert of Cardiff on 10 October that year, he should have been further promoted to become earl of Pembroke on the following day."<br /> <br />Both titles were hereditary, which means that Henry was also Baron Herbert of Cardiff, a lesser rank which could be used by our William. This explains why in the ninth volume of The Walpole Society (http://tinyurl.com/walpole9) we find "It is hard, however, to believe that the bearer in the foreground can represent a youth of barely twenty years old. William, Lord Herbert of Cardiff, known in later years as the friend of Shakespeare, was born in April, 1580."<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-26088481532942594492011-01-10T14:05:25.184-05:002011-01-10T14:05:25.184-05:00So let's take stock.
Debrett, whose sole purp...So let's take stock.<br /><br />Debrett, whose sole purpose is to ensure that such etiquette is changed as little as possible unless there are new circumstances to be dealt with (such as the non-royal Dukes you mention) say:<br />"The eldest (or only) son of an earl will use a peerage title by courtesy (of a rank junior to his father) and should be addressed accordingly." There is no reason at all to assume that this would have changed over time, nor is there any mention of such a title being "given", just that this is what happens.<br /><br />The DNB reports it said of William Herbert:<br />"(...) ‘My lord Herbert is exceedingly beloved at court of all men’, wrote his uncle's man Rowland Whyte...". <br /><br />Henry Brown, in his book "Shakespeare's Patrons & other essays" apparently quoting from the dedication in question tells us:<br />"Robert Barret prepared and published a folio volume on "The Theory and Practice of Modern Wars " expressly for the young lord in 1598. There are two dedications to the volume ; the first is to the Earl of Pembroke, the other to his youthful son William Lord Herbert."<br /><br />And in the Swansea records we read of his nephew (as far as I know never "granted" this title either) referred to in the following:<br />"i) Rt. Hon. Phillip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery etc. and his son William Lord Herbert...".<br /><br />I'm sorry, Isabel, but if you don't accept this as sufficient evidence to cast serious doubt upon your idea that "Mr. W.H." would have referred to William Herbert in 1597, then I can only assume that no evidence whatsoever will do so!<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-70363363201938802612011-01-10T12:27:31.294-05:002011-01-10T12:27:31.294-05:00Peter:
The trouble with Debrett and modern etiquet...Peter:<br />The trouble with Debrett and modern etiquette is that it is just that: modern; certainly post Elizabethan. It includes non-Royal Dukes (which did not exist between 1485 and 1623, when James granted to Buckingham the title of duke) and women Peers "suo jure" (in their own right). <br />So we can't take Debrett as source of information.<br /><br />As for your "Ultra [copied 17 Jan 1750] dated 10 Nov 1666; i) Rt. Hon. Phillip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery etc. and his son William Lord Herbert..."<br /> <br />You notice we are already in the Restoration, so once again the information is not to be trusted for 1597. <br /><br />I realize this is a tricky point, but as Pembroke never gave a courtesy title to his son William, and as he had not been knighted in 1597, I cannot see how he could have been called anything but Mister WH or, at a pinch, The Honorable Mister WH:Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-62396895838385999652011-01-10T08:51:02.612-05:002011-01-10T08:51:02.612-05:00Hi Isabel:
"But I have no evidence that in c...Hi Isabel:<br /><br />"But I have no evidence that in cases where no courtesy or personally-bestowed title existed, the heir to an earldom would "officially" be anything but "Mister". I am not swearing on this; all I am saying is that I have not found such evidence."<br /><br />I have found the following, concerning not our William Herbert but his nephew - another William Herbert who was first son of an Earl- on the City and County of Swansea website at http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=20123 and concerning a 1666 deal in the estate of the Earls of Pembroke: " Abstract of a copy bargain and sale with feoffment in consideration of £300, annual rent 3s.4d and duties as according to the custom of the manor of Neath Ultra [copied 17 Jan 1750] dated 10 Nov 1666; i) Rt. Hon. Phillip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery etc. and his son William Lord Herbert...".<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-35260087108199303562011-01-10T06:47:40.257-05:002011-01-10T06:47:40.257-05:00Hi Isabel
"...the 17th birthday of their eld...Hi Isabel<br /><br />"...the 17th birthday of their eldest son, the Honorable Mister William Herbert..." <br /><br />I have now checked the Debrett's website, and the interesting thing is that whereas this form of address would have been almost right for the younger son, Philip, it would be quite wrong for William who, as the eldest son and heir of an Earl, would have been given a "peerage title by courtesy" of a rank below that of his father, such as Viscount or Lord. In this case, he would appear to have been William, Lord Herbert (and definitely not "Mr."). Philip, on the other hand - assuming the 'rules' haven't changed since then, which they almost certainly haven't - would before 1605 have been The Hon Philip Herbert, Mr. Philip Herbert or Mr. Herbert according to the circumstances.<br /><br />"...But I can imagine Mary Sidney, raising her glass to toast her son’s health, announcing that she would now read out-loud these 17 of sonnets..."<br /><br />I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of these being read out at a 17th birthday bash of the sort you describe. In fact about ten years ago it was suggested on the HLAS newsgroup that each of the 17 might have been written for a specific guest at the party to read out. This made so much sense to me that I even made a stab at guessing who was the intended reader for each of them (see http://tinyurl.com/sonnets-1-17). Unfortunately we were working on the assumption that the addressee was Southampton, but the same principle applies, and even some of the same people would have probably been involved!<br /><br />So it isn't the idea of the Sonnets as a "birthday present" I was criticizing, only your trying to make the word "begetter" appropriate in that situation, which I really don't think it is.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-44978699333865521772011-01-09T16:06:10.961-05:002011-01-09T16:06:10.961-05:00PF: "Forget the 17 Arab steeds, Mum, what I w...PF: "Forget the 17 Arab steeds, Mum, what I would really really like for my birthday is a collection of 17 sonnets urging me to get married".<br /><br />I don't think that's what happened, Peter.<br />I like this better:<br /><br />On April 8th 1597, the Earl and Countess of Pembroke organized a private party at Wilton House to celebrate the 17th birthday of their eldest son, the Honorable Mister William Herbert (having previously presented the boy with 17 Arab studs; his father's idea). <br /><br />The festivities probably lasted several days, as was customary in those days. Knowing the Herbert-Sidney family, we can take for granted that several literary figures would have been included among the guests. Young William’s tutors, for example, Samuel Daniel and his brother-in-law John Florio, as well perhaps as Florio’s nephew, that notorious name-dropper, Frances Meres. <br /><br />On the politico-social side, Lord Burghley and his son Robert could also have been invited, particularly as in 1597 negotiations were taking place between Pembroke and Lord Burghley for William to marry Bridget de Vere, second daughter of the Earl of Oxford and grand-daughter of Lord Burghley. <br /><br />With all these guests staying at Wilton House for several days, Masks, Plays and Concerts would have been provided for the evenings’ entertainment, and possibly sessions of poetry reading. Poems dedicated to the youth would be an obvious choice for the professional and amateur poets attending the festivities.<br /><br />Sensing perhaps the boy’s reluctance to the proposed marriage (that pleased both families, but would never take place), his mother had the idea of commissioning some Sonnets to her favorite poet, the officially “dead” Kit Marlowe, now living in the Continent as Agent of the Earl of Essex, an old friend of the Sidney family. Seventeen wonderful sonnets by the Great Master should have pleased young Herbert, himself a poet of some merit, who had known Marlowe as a child. Perhaps neither the Countess nor Kit Marlowe could guess that the boy would consider the contents of the Sonnets an impertinence.<br /><br />But it is in this context that I imagine Mary Sidney, raising her glass to toast her son’s health, announcing that she would now read out-loud these 17 of sonnets, written for William by the “new star” in the literary firmament. (Because of course, for the benefit of the guests, the author’s name given would have been Marlowe’s alias since his “death” in May 1593.)<br /><br />“I shall read the Sonnets myself -she said- here is the dedication”: <br /><br />To the Only Begetter of These Sonnets:<br />The Honorable Mr. William Herbert,<br />All Happiness and Eternitie,<br />Wisheth <br />W. Shake-speareisabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-54853085381304104962011-01-08T10:14:15.258-05:002011-01-08T10:14:15.258-05:00Hi Peter:
I cannot quote your words or this become...Hi Peter:<br />I cannot quote your words or this becomes too long, so the readers will have to refer to your comment.<br /><br />1) There are countless examples of words with an accepted meaning having that meaning altered by the addition of the rhetorical “only”.<br /><br />2) By "we Marlovians", you must mean "some Marlovians". As I don’t believe Mr WH is the author, finding out who he may be is essential to my understanding of the dedication.<br /><br />3) I can easily believe that the servants, tutors, etc would have called an earl’s son “my lord Whatever”. I am, however, not at all sure that would be strictly his due title. It is irritating that we cannot trust any post-Jacobean book of etiquette. In my contemporary readings I find the “handle” is usually left out and the men in question are mentioned by their full names. <br /><br />One specific example from a courtier writing in the mid seventeenth Century: “Philip Herbert, later to be Earl of Montgomery, etc.” He does not say "Mr Philip Herbert", but neither does he say "Lord Philip Herbert", as one might have expected, had he the right to be so called. <br /><br />The "Sir" came with a knighthood, either inherited or bestowed directly, and the "Lord" came with a title, idem. In some cases where a secondary title existed, such secondary title was granted to the heir as a “courtesy title”, in which case, such heir would become a “lord” ipso facto. But I have no evidence that in cases where no courtesy or personally-bestowed title existed, the heir to an earldom would “officially” be anything but “Mister”. I am not swearing on this; all I am saying is that I have not found such evidence.<br /><br />Finally: My suggestion was that the 1597 dedication of the 17 sonnets, NEVER BEFORE IMPRINTED, was privately circulated among friends, therefore hardly a give away for buyers of the book twelve years later.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.com