Thank you for this! Had Shakespeare’s Sonnets been taught like this in school, a boy might’ve known sooner the levity of a secret shared with and redeemed by a poet. This may have been the least of your objectives, but it is that which you raised simply as a point of historical curiosity (instead of singularly dismissed as unimportant, or even evaded entirely, as was the case in my own education) that would’ve yielded in him a sexual curiosity to sustain the attempt at understanding the work in hopes of glimpsing a new language by which he might’ve felt understood. And perhaps it’s not that he needed to know the sonnets were written for a man in order to enjoy them but that he needed simply to be shown, just once, an example of allowing oneself to be attracted to another man in one’s own mind, in order to read, silently or aloud, words of love and yearning without pretending or lying. I’m too ignorant to have an opinion on the likely identity of M.W.H., but thanks again for presenting the inquiry and renewing my interest in Shakespeare and I suspect therefore a latent interest in poetry more generally. Incidentally, stumbling upon your video today is preceded by very recently reading Plato’s Symposium (rather than a textbook interpretation) for the first time. As you might imagine, I am feeling both an immense sense of disappointment with the willful exclusion of certain aspects of foundational works from their respective curricula (at least in my American public education) and excitement by the invitation to become a student again. Looking forward to watching the next part of this lesson soon!
Thank you for your thoughtful, informative and stimulating videos. I hadn't thought of Shakespeare's sonnets since university 35 years ago!! I think the question of not just Shakespeare's sexuality, but sexual acceptibility throughout the age is a question we 'moderns' will never completely resolve. All those years ago, at uni, my lecturer certainly thought there was a homoerotic meaning to the sonnets, and that Southampton was the lead candidate (he was an Elizabethan scholar as his first interest). I seem to vaguely recall hearing a subsequent radio program which argued strongly against Southampton, but I cannot remember any of the details. I'm going on to your seond part now. Thanks again.
Hello! I just found your channel and I am now going back to the beginning watching all your videos in order. I love your enthusiasm and insights and how you bring your genuine love of history to all your videos.
I read an interesting book that contended Southampton was The Youth, the family name being pronounced back then as “Rosely,” not “Risely.” And the family’s device was a rose. So all of that “A rose by any other name…” sonnet imagery was telling the secret of The Youth’s identity
@@Azarath_Metrion_ZinthosBut it's not clear till now if those feelings were platonic or sexual/physical. Having platonic feelings doesn't mean they are bi or homo.
I really enjoyed this, and I really appreciate your openness to the potential homoerotic spirit of the fair youth sonnets. I am happy to remain neutral on whom these were written to, because the scholarship on those questions goes past my interest. But though I could be open to neutrality on the question of the homoerotic spirit of the fair youth sonnets, I find the arguments against the homoerotic spirit typically claim authoritative knowledge of what could or couldn't be expressed by Elizabethan male writers, as though they unwaveringly wrote only on certain subjects in certain ways. My own experience, whether in the US, Mexico or Thailand (the three places where I have lived extensively) is that there is a persistent cultural will to look aside when homoerotic behavior is displayed, if the men involved have sufficient social standing or public admiration. While I may never know why Shakespeare wrote these sonnets in the way he did, the same arguments against homoerotic behavior have been made about many reputable cultural figures, and point more to social "packaging" rather than to the actions or the desires of the men concerned.
Wonderful, fascinating analysis and readings, I could listen to you do this for all of Shakespeare’s sonnets, and especially, his plays. Whenever I have tickets to one of his plays, I read it carefully first, use a quality annotated version, and still looks words up. Then, I “catch” so much more, and enjoy it so much more, during the performance than I would have without this preparation. I have always found his poetry to be much more difficult to get into, having you explain it really helps. I disagree with most people because I think the poems refer to platonic love, with just a bit of homosexual longing. This type of idealized male-male friendship runs throughout literature, from Homer, to Waugh. I think in previous times, before the legalization/decriminalization of homosexuality in many parts of the world, deep, dedicated friendship and sexuality were more shades on a continuum, from the platonic/familial love between Achilles and Patroclus (the original Greek says only that they were companions, and I find no convincing evidence of homosexuality), to the Renaissance ideal of perfect (male-male) love that you mentioned in a previous video, to the 19th C. Boston Marriages, to the “best friends with naughty overtones” in Waugh. For some reason I don’t understand, friendship and love are now rigidly categorized; each relationship must be platonic, romantic, or sexual and between one, two or both sexes. There were penalties for “sodomy” (all non-procreative sexual activities), throughout recorded history, ranging from ostracism to execution, and yet deep, lasting platonic love, with or without romantic or sexual overtones, seems to occur throughout it also. I think it is more complex than just “having to be inexplicit” because of the penalties, I think we just read many of the relationships in history and literature wrong, through our modern sensibilities.
If one watches Alexander Waugh's extremely well researched & presented videos on the 17th Earl of Oxford having written the works now attributed to a "shake-spear" one gets an entirely different & fascinatingly possible explanation of the fair youth & the dark lady. Guess I've become an Oxfordian.
If one fact checks all of the claims Waugh makes, one realizes that he's just making most of it up. If one asks him to cite his sources, one gets banned from his channel.
@@DrWrapperband The source is Waugh. He never cites his sources. I asked him to provide sources. He banned me. If you want to fact check him, the only thorough and sourced biography of Edward De Vere is Monstrous Adversary by Alan Nelson. Since Waugh doesn't cite his sources, you can check that to see if there are any sources for the things Waugh claims. Generally, there aren't. When it comes to his fantastic claims about John Dee, you can consult Dee's own published writings, which rarely include any of the claims Waugh makes about him. For example, he never writes anything about gematria. Waugh makes it sound like De Vere was Dee's best buddy, but there's no actual evidence they ever met.
Nature added the fair youth's "cod dangle" (H/T to BBC's sitcom "Upstart Crow," which did an entire episode on Shakespeare's sonnets). I don't think Shakespeare's love for the fair youth had to be sexual in nature. Today, because we have to view every intense loving relationship as having a sexual component, we can no longer accept that platonic love can exist between individuals regardless of gender. Love ≠ sex.
I am very glad you treat of the Sonnets. They are wonderful and you speak of them with clarity and intelligence. You have chosen some of my favourite sonnets. Reading number XX for the first time surprised and delighted me. I wonder whether the word prick for penis was used at the time of Shakespeare. This would reinforce the meaning of “pricked thee out”.
"Pricked tee out for ladies pleasure" would seem to make it obvious, but Shakespeare also used it as a sexual pun in As You Like It: "He that sweetest rose will find/must find love's prick and Rosalinde." And in R&J: "The bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon." Wikipedia cites it being used as a verb for intercourse in Chaucer.
I've always argued that these sonnets were written to his son, Hamnet, with whom he was very doting and close. Shakespeare always went home in time for Hamlet's birthday. One year he missed it. Later that same year, Hamnet died. Within 6 months of that death, Shakespeare had written "Hamlet" about a betrayed son and nephew, AND the first of the sonnets believed to be written to a young man. This timeline always helped make it obvious to me that the love sonnets were written to honor his son (who I would also argue that Shakespeare probably felt guilty for missing his son's last birthday), not celebrating a love affair.
I've read pretty much every primary source there is in relation to Shakespeare, and I've never seen anything that shows he was back in Stratford for Hamnet's birthday. Got a source?
@@Jeffhowardmeade No. That was my point. The year his son died, he DIDN'T go home and that was unusual. I can't site a source because it was research I was doing 20 years ago but it always stuck with me.
@@whaleymom76 And my point is that there's no record of when he went home. William Davenant said it was his habit to go home once a year, but specified no particular time of year. This was at least 15 years after Hamnet died if Davenant (b.1606) remembers it. We have records of a home purchase (New Place) in May of 1597, and he would have needed to make a personal appearance at court at some point. Every other document (except his will) which places Shakespeare in a fixed location has him in London. If I'm missing something, I'd love to know.
@@Jeffhowardmeade I can't prove it but it was discussed with a man who had a doctorate in Shakespeare, literature, and that time in England, so I have to believe he wouldn't have allowed me to use invalid sources or information. Happy research 🙂
We can be sure that some sonnets were written pre-1600 because two were published in 1599 and Francis Meres referenced Shakespeare's sonnets in 1598. We can be sure that sonnet 107 was written in 1603 or later because it references the death of Queen Elizabeth.
I would argue that Sonnet 107 does NOT reference the death of Eluzabeth. It is supposed that the evlipse of the " mortal moon" refets to her. death. But the poet tells us that the moon endures the eclipse, that prophecies are wrong and doomsayers mistaken.
@@arealphoney the doomsayers are mistaken because things IMPROVED after her death. "confined doom" is a reference to Southampton and Neville's imprisonment (they were freed after her death). "olives of endless age" is a reference to jacobus pacificus "crown themselves assured" references James' crowning. "balmy" is a reference to his anointing with oil
"William Shakespeare" (whoever that was) explicitly dedicated his entire career to Henry Wriothesley in the Dedication of Lucrece - "what I have done is yours, what I have to do is yours..." A half dozen years later, Henry Wriothesley was sentenced to death for his role in attempting to overthrow Queen Elizabeth or have her make him her heir. Did Shakespeare know that Henry Wriothesley considered himself to be a possible heir to the crown? Was the Lucrece dedication an endorsement in anticipation of Wriothesley's future claim? What did Shakespeare know and when did he know it?
The 3 candidates have potential. Not the last. it's difficult to say which candidate is more likely to be the fair youth I do think that the sonnets are homoerotic in nature. I didn't think what he wrote to the Earl of Southampton was suggestive. It seemed normal to speak this way to a patron if the Earl is a big supporter of Shakespeare. But i understand why it could be mistaken to be something more. I think Shakespeare did want to get it on with the fair youth. But i don't think that he actually had a relationship with this person
In reading the Symposium I find that Socrates attraction to Alciabides is not something to be denied but is something not to be acted upon, as appreciation of male beauty is supposed for philosophers to lead us on to appreciation of higher forms of beauty in the ideal none material world. For Plato this is not a love that dare not speak its mind. Some could pretend to go along with this while pretending that to be a sodomite or catamite would be shameful. But Self denial of the act itself only adds to the final thrill.The male to male equivalent of Tritram, Lancelot or Ghandi.
Very interesting and insightful. And yet I can't help but wonder - do we really need to know? are we trying to out Shakespeare? Can't we just enjoy the beauty of his poetry?
I never really knew anything about the Shakespeare sonnets and am surprised to learn that they were written to two different people, one a man and one a woman
I do not perceive any indication that the audience for Sonnet 73 must be much younger than the speaker. To me, the speaker merely suggests that his or her lover recognizes and acknowledges the partner's aging. This sonnet that speaks to me far above any of the others. The construction and the sentiment are just wonderful.
Thank you for commenting. I think your reading of the sonnets' tone is a sound one and I agree that Southampton is a really strong candidate for the 'fair youth'.
While I agree that the sonnets are homoerotic and the Southampton is the subject; I think these sonnets are a case of unrequited love. Shakespeare's skill as a poet is certainly superior, but I am too much reminded of those limping poems that infatuated schoolgirls write in their notebooks and diaries.
The "Fair Youth" is addressed with the informal "thou", rather than the formal "you". In the dedications to Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, the Earl of Southampton is addressed as "you". Unless they were on better terms in private (where Shakespeare's Sonnets were initially circulated) than in public, Shakespeare would not have been able to address an aristocrat thusly.
I have never read the sonnets. I'm going to check them out. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. 😁 Your vedios are very interesting, making me think rather than just accept someones opinions. Shakes up the brain out of boring nothingness.
The dedication is made by Thomas Thorpe, not by Shakespeare; take away all the fancy wording and it reads: "TT wishes all happiness to Mr WH". Thorpe doesn't have any reason we know of to dedicate the book to the Fair Youth. He does call WH the "onlie begetter" of the poems, which is a pretty clear reference to the begetting sonnets, but to my mind that's just a piece of clumsy pseudo-Shakespearean wordplay, like "that ETERNITY promised by our EVER-LIVING poet" and "wisheth the well-wishing adventurer". It doesn't tell us in what sense Mr WH is the poems' begetter: the one who inspired the poems, the one who wrote the poems, the one who gave Thorpe the money to collect and publish the poems, the one who inspired Thorpe to publish the poems in the same way the FY inspired Shakespeare? There's really no way to tell, and no reason to think WH is the same as FY. The one thing that's clear to me is that William Shakespeare had no hand in writing that silly dedication.
I agree and also we may never know who Mr. - or Master - WH was. Master indicated a person of a specific social class, and not a generic honorific like it is now. To me, the mere fact of using Mr. tells us to look outside the nobility for WH. The dedication is meant to honor WH, and demoting a Lord WH to a Master WH would very much have backfired. And if even lords can get lost to history after so many centuries, can we expect mere misters to endure?
I don't think he's talking about himself at all, but projecting a scene he visualizes. Why should any one of his sonnets be taken as his own life experience? How can we really know? I enjoy your videos. Thank you.
But no actual evidence. Oxfordians are endlessly griping about speculation based on contemporary practices found in Shakespeare biographies but ignore the documented facts, all the while creating fantasies about De Vere based on nothing whatsoever.
I am buying into this rather late as it has been up for 4 years. 1. I am not entirely convinced that the young man of the first 17 sonnets is the same young mab wuth who the Poet becomes infatuated. There is evidence within the imagery of the sonnets that it may be. But not necessarily. The implications of Sonnet 20 are clear- the Poet is NOT seeking a physical relationship at that point. He presumes that the young man's gender bars a physical relationship. But he does not discount the possibility of a loving relationship on an emotional level. I am not at all sure that the degree of passion that the Sonnets express can possibly be called "platonic". The Sonnets indicate that the young man does return his love, but without quite the same depth of devotion. If we can interpret the sonnets biographically, then we see that the young man does nit remain true during periods of separation, that he is flatteted by the attentions of another poet, that he has a relationship with some woman with whom the Poet has had a relationship... and then may aloso have fallen for the charms of the Dark Lady. The poor poet struggles with all this, "Love is not Love that alters when it alteration finds . . ." But despite his best intentions, maintaining the strength of a fairly fruitless obsession cannot last forever. Ultimately, a dynamic, sexy, and physical person comes along and grabs him by the short and curlies. If the relationship with the fair youth did become phtsical, it ought not to be presumed that it involved penetrative intercourse. People in the 21st century often presume that sexual practices which are now widely known about, have ALWAYS been commonplace. This is not the case. Married couples could get it together happily for 50 years believing that there was only one position in which respectable people made love, and that you turned the lights out and did it under the covers.
Any of the candidates seem plausible. I don’t think we can rule out his nephew. Uncles throughout history have always given advice to their nephews and nieces. He might have been worried that he was going to loose out on life.
We covet what (or whom) we see every day, which, for me, eliminates the nobleman-as-lover theory. I believe Shakespeare's "fair youth" was Willy Hugh or Hughes or someone like Willy Hugh, a young actor adept at playing women's roles. To this day, theaters are hothouse atmospheres. So are restaurants for that matter, or any environment where people are thrown together over a long period of time. Liaisons inevitably arise. And it can be reasonably assumed that boy actors were chosen for their effeminate looks as well as their theatrical talent. Day in and day out, rehearsals, revisions, performances, Shakespeare would have been in contact with his fair youth. Knowing we we do about human nature, especially when it comes to the sexual impulse, it is surprising to me that any doubt should remain about the nature of their relationship. Of course, it was physical. Just like King James's relationships with Argyll, Somerset and Buckingham, this relationship was consummated. Sexuality is rarely binary. It exists along a continuum. I was delighted to see that you featured all the sonnets I particularly love and can recite from memory. Such a great subject for discussion.
Shakespeare hid the name "Wriothesley" throughout the Sonnets: Pity the world, or else this glutton be = pItY THe WORld or ELSE = IY TH WOR ELSE = WRIOTHESLEY (sonnet 1) When forty winters shall besiege thy brow = wHEN foRtY winters ShalL bEsIegE THY bROW = HEN RY S L EIE THY ROW = HENRY WRIOTHESELY (sonnet 2) Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time = despite of WRInkLES, this THY gOldEn time = WRILES THY OE = WRIOTHESELY (sonnet 3) Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend = unTHRIftY LOvElinESs, Why dost thou spend = THRIY LOEES W = WRIOTHESELY (sonnet 4) etc....can you find them all? bonus anagram: "Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?" = Lamely codes amatuerish metaphors (amateurishly codes lame metaphors?)
I don't get it....so someone in history doesn't want to get married is assumed by historians as homosexual?! Don't get me wrong, I'm def curious as to who was LGBTQ+ in history. But I find it silly to say bc someone was not in a rush to get married that meant they were gay...
Sorry, some more things I wanted to mention: 1. I always thought romantic feelings don’t have to encompass sexual desire and vice versa, and recent medical research might support this, the two feelings occur in different parts of the brain, that are not particularly well connected. 2. I think the “Fair Youth” is an ideal figure, not based on a person. 3. I would love more videos on Shakespeare’s history plays, the comedies don’t interest me as much. 4. I think your background and degrees are in Literature and/or Drama, based on what you’ve said. Do we then bug you to do too much history?
Sonnet 116....that is not what my English teacher taught. I always thought it was about love not changing even if the person physically does. Who'd guess.
No prove on true neither personal nor gender identity of Shakespeare being claimed found we may suggest the author of a love sonnet addressed to a man could be a woman as well...
He obviously, neither could, nor would have wanted to "kiss and tell" - it was and probably still is, for the better I like your videos (and not that I see a bible behind you) but in this one, something you say (just around "before the word existed") strikes me as if you could be having problems with certain aspects of human existence (?) Ellis din not invent people having, or wanting, sexual relationships with persons of the same gender (not jellylike that Gilgamesh and Enkidu would have invented something either) he just "launched" the word for it,,,
Thank you for this! Had Shakespeare’s Sonnets been taught like this in school, a boy might’ve known sooner the levity of a secret shared with and redeemed by a poet. This may have been the least of your objectives, but it is that which you raised simply as a point of historical curiosity (instead of singularly dismissed as unimportant, or even evaded entirely, as was the case in my own education) that would’ve yielded in him a sexual curiosity to sustain the attempt at understanding the work in hopes of glimpsing a new language by which he might’ve felt understood. And perhaps it’s not that he needed to know the sonnets were written for a man in order to enjoy them but that he needed simply to be shown, just once, an example of allowing oneself to be attracted to another man in one’s own mind, in order to read, silently or aloud, words of love and yearning without pretending or lying. I’m too ignorant to have an opinion on the likely identity of M.W.H., but thanks again for presenting the inquiry and renewing my interest in Shakespeare and I suspect therefore a latent interest in poetry more generally. Incidentally, stumbling upon your video today is preceded by very recently reading Plato’s Symposium (rather than a textbook interpretation) for the first time. As you might imagine, I am feeling both an immense sense of disappointment with the willful exclusion of certain aspects of foundational works from their respective curricula (at least in my American public education) and excitement by the invitation to become a student again. Looking forward to watching the next part of this lesson soon!
Thank you for your thoughtful, informative and stimulating videos. I hadn't thought of Shakespeare's sonnets since university 35 years ago!! I think the question of not just Shakespeare's sexuality, but sexual acceptibility throughout the age is a question we 'moderns' will never completely resolve. All those years ago, at uni, my lecturer certainly thought there was a homoerotic meaning to the sonnets, and that Southampton was the lead candidate (he was an Elizabethan scholar as his first interest). I seem to vaguely recall hearing a subsequent radio program which argued strongly against Southampton, but I cannot remember any of the details. I'm going on to your seond part now. Thanks again.
Hello! I just found your channel and I am now going back to the beginning watching all your videos in order. I love your enthusiasm and insights and how you bring your genuine love of history to all your videos.
Great video. Going to watch part 2 now.
I read an interesting book that contended Southampton was The Youth, the family name being pronounced back then as “Rosely,” not “Risely.” And the family’s device was a rose. So all of that “A rose by any other name…” sonnet imagery was telling the secret of The Youth’s identity
'A rose by any other name' isnt from a sonnet, its from romeo and juliet
Absolutely brilliant, I really love these vidéos. Please make more. Thanks so much 😍
Thanks, James. I'm really happy you liked the video - stay tuned for part two next Friday ☺️
@@ReadingthePast I cant wait. 😍😍😍🎉
As a bisexual person I want to thank you for not outright denying Shakespeare's bisexuality. It is really important to me.
How could anyone deny what we can't possibly know?
@@jeffmeade8643idk...maybe because it's present right there in his 1-126 sonnets which he dedicated to one Mr. WH🙄 duh!
@@Azarath_Metrion_Zinthos Shakespeare didn't write the dedication. The publisher, Thomas Thorpe did.
@@JeffhowardmeadeHe's talking about 1-126 sonnets smh🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@Azarath_Metrion_ZinthosBut it's not clear till now if those feelings were platonic or sexual/physical. Having platonic feelings doesn't mean they are bi or homo.
You read Shakespeare beautifully. It's great to paint by. Covid isolation can have a silver lining. I found your channel. Cheers!
I really enjoyed this, and I really appreciate your openness to the potential homoerotic spirit of the fair youth sonnets. I am happy to remain neutral on whom these were written to, because the scholarship on those questions goes past my interest. But though I could be open to neutrality on the question of the homoerotic spirit of the fair youth sonnets, I find the arguments against the homoerotic spirit typically claim authoritative knowledge of what could or couldn't be expressed by Elizabethan male writers, as though they unwaveringly wrote only on certain subjects in certain ways. My own experience, whether in the US, Mexico or Thailand (the three places where I have lived extensively) is that there is a persistent cultural will to look aside when homoerotic behavior is displayed, if the men involved have sufficient social standing or public admiration. While I may never know why Shakespeare wrote these sonnets in the way he did, the same arguments against homoerotic behavior have been made about many reputable cultural figures, and point more to social "packaging" rather than to the actions or the desires of the men concerned.
Wonderful, fascinating analysis and readings, I could listen to you do this for all of Shakespeare’s sonnets, and especially, his plays. Whenever I have tickets to one of his plays, I read it carefully first, use a quality annotated version, and still looks words up. Then, I “catch” so much more, and enjoy it so much more, during the performance than I would have without this preparation. I have always found his poetry to be much more difficult to get into, having you explain it really helps. I disagree with most people because I think the poems refer to platonic love, with just a bit of homosexual longing. This type of idealized male-male friendship runs throughout literature, from Homer, to Waugh. I think in previous times, before the legalization/decriminalization of homosexuality in many parts of the world, deep, dedicated friendship and sexuality were more shades on a continuum, from the platonic/familial love between Achilles and Patroclus (the original Greek says only that they were companions, and I find no convincing evidence of homosexuality), to the Renaissance ideal of perfect (male-male) love that you mentioned in a previous video, to the 19th C. Boston Marriages, to the “best friends with naughty overtones” in Waugh. For some reason I don’t understand, friendship and love are now rigidly categorized; each relationship must be platonic, romantic, or sexual and between one, two or both sexes. There were penalties for “sodomy” (all non-procreative sexual activities), throughout recorded history, ranging from ostracism to execution, and yet deep, lasting platonic love, with or without romantic or sexual overtones, seems to occur throughout it also. I think it is more complex than just “having to be inexplicit” because of the penalties, I think we just read many of the relationships in history and literature wrong, through our modern sensibilities.
If one watches Alexander Waugh's extremely well researched & presented videos on the 17th Earl of Oxford having written the works now attributed to a "shake-spear" one gets an entirely different & fascinatingly possible explanation of the fair youth & the dark lady. Guess I've become an Oxfordian.
If one fact checks all of the claims Waugh makes, one realizes that he's just making most of it up. If one asks him to cite his sources, one gets banned from his channel.
@@Jeffhowardmeade What's one's source for that nonsense?
@@DrWrapperband The source is Waugh. He never cites his sources. I asked him to provide sources. He banned me. If you want to fact check him, the only thorough and sourced biography of Edward De Vere is Monstrous Adversary by Alan Nelson. Since Waugh doesn't cite his sources, you can check that to see if there are any sources for the things Waugh claims. Generally, there aren't. When it comes to his fantastic claims about John Dee, you can consult Dee's own published writings, which rarely include any of the claims Waugh makes about him. For example, he never writes anything about gematria. Waugh makes it sound like De Vere was Dee's best buddy, but there's no actual evidence they ever met.
Nature added the fair youth's "cod dangle" (H/T to BBC's sitcom "Upstart Crow," which did an entire episode on Shakespeare's sonnets).
I don't think Shakespeare's love for the fair youth had to be sexual in nature. Today, because we have to view every intense loving relationship as having a sexual component, we can no longer accept that platonic love can exist between individuals regardless of gender. Love ≠ sex.
Additionally, "Perfect love..." could be the unconditional love of parents for their children.
I am very glad you treat of the Sonnets. They are wonderful and you speak of them with clarity and intelligence. You have chosen some of my favourite sonnets. Reading number XX for the first time surprised and delighted me. I wonder whether the word prick for penis was used at the time of Shakespeare. This would reinforce the meaning of “pricked thee out”.
"Pricked tee out for ladies pleasure" would seem to make it obvious, but Shakespeare also used it as a sexual pun in As You Like It: "He that sweetest rose will find/must find love's prick and Rosalinde." And in R&J: "The bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon."
Wikipedia cites it being used as a verb for intercourse in Chaucer.
I've always argued that these sonnets were written to his son, Hamnet, with whom he was very doting and close. Shakespeare always went home in time for Hamlet's birthday. One year he missed it. Later that same year, Hamnet died. Within 6 months of that death, Shakespeare had written "Hamlet" about a betrayed son and nephew, AND the first of the sonnets believed to be written to a young man. This timeline always helped make it obvious to me that the love sonnets were written to honor his son (who I would also argue that Shakespeare probably felt guilty for missing his son's last birthday), not celebrating a love affair.
I've read pretty much every primary source there is in relation to Shakespeare, and I've never seen anything that shows he was back in Stratford for Hamnet's birthday. Got a source?
@@Jeffhowardmeade No. That was my point. The year his son died, he DIDN'T go home and that was unusual. I can't site a source because it was research I was doing 20 years ago but it always stuck with me.
@@whaleymom76 And my point is that there's no record of when he went home. William Davenant said it was his habit to go home once a year, but specified no particular time of year. This was at least 15 years after Hamnet died if Davenant (b.1606) remembers it. We have records of a home purchase (New Place) in May of 1597, and he would have needed to make a personal appearance at court at some point.
Every other document (except his will) which places Shakespeare in a fixed location has him in London.
If I'm missing something, I'd love to know.
@@Jeffhowardmeade
I can't prove it but it was discussed with a man who had a doctorate in Shakespeare, literature, and that time in England, so I have to believe he wouldn't have allowed me to use invalid sources or information. Happy research 🙂
@@whaleymom76 It was worth asking. Thanks for the replies.
I love this! Thank you!
We can be sure that some sonnets were written pre-1600 because two were published in 1599 and Francis Meres referenced Shakespeare's sonnets in 1598. We can be sure that sonnet 107 was written in 1603 or later because it references the death of Queen Elizabeth.
I would argue that Sonnet 107 does NOT reference the death of Eluzabeth. It is supposed that the evlipse of the " mortal moon" refets to her. death. But the poet tells us that the moon endures the eclipse, that prophecies are wrong and doomsayers mistaken.
@@arealphoney the doomsayers are mistaken because things IMPROVED after her death. "confined doom" is a reference to Southampton and Neville's imprisonment (they were freed after her death). "olives of endless age" is a reference to jacobus pacificus "crown themselves assured" references James' crowning. "balmy" is a reference to his anointing with oil
"William Shakespeare" (whoever that was) explicitly dedicated his entire career to Henry Wriothesley in the Dedication of Lucrece - "what I have done is yours, what I have to do is yours..." A half dozen years later, Henry Wriothesley was sentenced to death for his role in attempting to overthrow Queen Elizabeth or have her make him her heir. Did Shakespeare know that Henry Wriothesley considered himself to be a possible heir to the crown? Was the Lucrece dedication an endorsement in anticipation of Wriothesley's future claim? What did Shakespeare know and when did he know it?
The 3 candidates have potential. Not the last.
it's difficult to say which candidate is more likely to be the fair youth
I do think that the sonnets are homoerotic in nature.
I didn't think what he wrote to the Earl of Southampton was suggestive. It seemed normal to speak this way to a patron if the Earl is a big supporter of Shakespeare. But i understand why it could be mistaken to be something more.
I think Shakespeare did want to get it on with the fair youth. But i don't think that he actually had a relationship with this person
In reading the Symposium I find that Socrates attraction to Alciabides is not something to be denied but is something not to be acted upon, as appreciation of male beauty is supposed for philosophers to lead us on to appreciation of higher forms of beauty in the ideal none material world. For Plato this is not a love that dare not speak its mind. Some could pretend to go along with this while pretending that to be a sodomite or catamite would be shameful. But Self denial of the act itself only adds to the final thrill.The male to male equivalent of Tritram, Lancelot or Ghandi.
I enjoyed this video about Shakespeare's sonnets the fair youth !
Very interesting and insightful. And yet I can't help but wonder - do we really need to know? are we trying to out Shakespeare? Can't we just enjoy the beauty of his poetry?
I never really knew anything about the Shakespeare sonnets and am surprised to learn that they were written to two different people, one a man and one a woman
What would lead you to that conclusion?
@@jeffmeade8643 what Dr Kat talked about.
I do not perceive any indication that the audience for Sonnet 73 must be much younger than the speaker. To me, the speaker merely suggests that his or her lover recognizes and acknowledges the partner's aging. This sonnet that speaks to me far above any of the others. The construction and the sentiment are just wonderful.
Marvellous.
I think those sonnets are homoerotic. And I always pictured the Earl of Southampton as the 'fair youth'. maybe it's just me
Thank you for commenting. I think your reading of the sonnets' tone is a sound one and I agree that Southampton is a really strong candidate for the 'fair youth'.
While I agree that the sonnets are homoerotic and the Southampton is the subject; I think these sonnets are a case of unrequited love. Shakespeare's skill as a poet is certainly superior, but I am too much reminded of those limping poems that infatuated schoolgirls write in their notebooks and diaries.
@@suzannecooke2055, Yes, it is my feeling also that it is, sadly, a case of unrequited love.
I love sonnet 116 ❤️
The "Fair Youth" is addressed with the informal "thou", rather than the formal "you". In the dedications to Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, the Earl of Southampton is addressed as "you". Unless they were on better terms in private (where Shakespeare's Sonnets were initially circulated) than in public, Shakespeare would not have been able to address an aristocrat thusly.
Love your videos - was Mr Johnson perhaps emphasising his own inclinations and therefore not looking at the subject matter with an open mind?
Who would the fair youth be if Wm Shakespeare was a pseudonym for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford who died in 1604?
Not anyone he wanted to marry his daughters, since there's no indication he gave a hoot about them or who they married.
His possible son with Queen Elizabeth, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.
@@Nope.UnknownThe same Henry Wriothesley he condemned to death for the Essex Rebellion?
I have never read the sonnets. I'm going to check them out. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. 😁 Your vedios are very interesting, making me think rather than just accept someones opinions. Shakes up the brain out of boring nothingness.
Could it be Shakespeare was speaking of his past and his love for & of his own life?
The dedication is made by Thomas Thorpe, not by Shakespeare; take away all the fancy wording and it reads: "TT wishes all happiness to Mr WH". Thorpe doesn't have any reason we know of to dedicate the book to the Fair Youth. He does call WH the "onlie begetter" of the poems, which is a pretty clear reference to the begetting sonnets, but to my mind that's just a piece of clumsy pseudo-Shakespearean wordplay, like "that ETERNITY promised by our EVER-LIVING poet" and "wisheth the well-wishing adventurer". It doesn't tell us in what sense Mr WH is the poems' begetter: the one who inspired the poems, the one who wrote the poems, the one who gave Thorpe the money to collect and publish the poems, the one who inspired Thorpe to publish the poems in the same way the FY inspired Shakespeare? There's really no way to tell, and no reason to think WH is the same as FY.
The one thing that's clear to me is that William Shakespeare had no hand in writing that silly dedication.
I agree and also we may never know who Mr. - or Master - WH was. Master indicated a person of a specific social class, and not a generic honorific like it is now. To me, the mere fact of using Mr. tells us to look outside the nobility for WH. The dedication is meant to honor WH, and demoting a Lord WH to a Master WH would very much have backfired. And if even lords can get lost to history after so many centuries, can we expect mere misters to endure?
His nephew makes the most sense as clearly he has father love towards the fairyouth
"fell a-doting" does not rhyme with "to my purpose nothing". It feels like a publisher adjustment to turn the meaning around.
400 years will do that to a good rhyme.
I don't think he's talking about himself at all, but projecting a scene he visualizes. Why should any one of his sonnets be taken as his own life experience? How can we really know? I enjoy your videos. Thank you.
Hank Whittemore has a comprehensive though controversial answer to the sonnets...gut feeling and logic come together
But no actual evidence. Oxfordians are endlessly griping about speculation based on contemporary practices found in Shakespeare biographies but ignore the documented facts, all the while creating fantasies about De Vere based on nothing whatsoever.
Ahhh, Old video about the "Vere youth".
I am buying into this rather late as it has been up for 4 years.
1. I am not entirely convinced that the young man of the first 17 sonnets is the same young mab wuth who the Poet becomes infatuated. There is evidence within the imagery of the sonnets that it may be. But not necessarily.
The implications of Sonnet 20 are clear- the Poet is NOT seeking a physical relationship at that point. He presumes that the young man's gender bars a physical relationship. But he does not discount the possibility of a loving relationship on an emotional level.
I am not at all sure that the degree of passion that the Sonnets express can possibly be called "platonic".
The Sonnets indicate that the young man does return his love, but without quite the same depth of devotion. If we can interpret the sonnets biographically, then we see that the young man does nit remain true during periods of separation, that he is flatteted by the attentions of another poet, that he has a relationship with some woman with whom the Poet has had a relationship... and then may aloso have fallen for the charms of the Dark Lady.
The poor poet struggles with all this, "Love is not Love that alters when it alteration finds . . ."
But despite his best intentions, maintaining the strength of a fairly fruitless obsession cannot last forever. Ultimately, a dynamic, sexy, and physical person comes along and grabs him by the short and curlies.
If the relationship with the fair youth did become phtsical, it ought not to be presumed that it involved penetrative intercourse.
People in the 21st century often presume that sexual practices which are now widely known about, have ALWAYS been commonplace.
This is not the case. Married couples could get it together happily for 50 years believing that there was only one position in which respectable people made love, and that you turned the lights out and did it under the covers.
Any of the candidates seem plausible. I don’t think we can rule out his nephew. Uncles throughout history have always given advice to their nephews and nieces. He might have been worried that he was going to loose out on life.
Shakespeare's oldest nephew in 1609, when The Sonnets were published (though most likely written many years earlier) was only nine years old.
Theaters closed on account of plague. Sound familiar?
We covet what (or whom) we see every day, which, for me, eliminates the nobleman-as-lover theory. I believe Shakespeare's "fair youth" was Willy Hugh or Hughes or someone like Willy Hugh, a young actor adept at playing women's roles. To this day, theaters are hothouse atmospheres. So are restaurants for that matter, or any environment where people are thrown together over a long period of time. Liaisons inevitably arise. And it can be reasonably assumed that boy actors were chosen for their effeminate looks as well as their theatrical talent.
Day in and day out, rehearsals, revisions, performances, Shakespeare would have been in contact with his fair youth. Knowing we we do about human nature, especially when it comes to the sexual impulse, it is surprising to me that any doubt should remain about the nature of their relationship. Of course, it was physical. Just like King James's relationships with Argyll, Somerset and Buckingham, this relationship was consummated. Sexuality is rarely binary. It exists along a continuum.
I was delighted to see that you featured all the sonnets I particularly love and can recite from memory. Such a great subject for discussion.
Shakespeare hid the name "Wriothesley" throughout the Sonnets:
Pity the world, or else this glutton be = pItY THe WORld or ELSE = IY TH WOR ELSE = WRIOTHESLEY (sonnet 1)
When forty winters shall besiege thy brow = wHEN foRtY winters ShalL bEsIegE THY bROW = HEN RY S L EIE THY ROW = HENRY WRIOTHESELY (sonnet 2)
Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time = despite of WRInkLES, this THY gOldEn time = WRILES THY OE = WRIOTHESELY (sonnet 3)
Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend = unTHRIftY LOvElinESs, Why dost thou spend = THRIY LOEES W = WRIOTHESELY (sonnet 4)
etc....can you find them all?
bonus anagram: "Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?" = Lamely codes amatuerish metaphors (amateurishly codes lame metaphors?)
I don't get it....so someone in history doesn't want to get married is assumed by historians as homosexual?! Don't get me wrong, I'm def curious as to who was LGBTQ+ in history. But I find it silly to say bc someone was not in a rush to get married that meant they were gay...
Sorry, some more things I wanted to mention: 1. I always thought romantic feelings don’t have to encompass sexual desire and vice versa, and recent medical research might support this, the two feelings occur in different parts of the brain, that are not particularly well connected. 2. I think the “Fair Youth” is an ideal figure, not based on a person. 3. I would love more videos on Shakespeare’s history plays, the comedies don’t interest me as much. 4. I think your background and degrees are in Literature and/or Drama, based on what you’ve said. Do we then bug you to do too much history?
❤️🇨🇦
I believe you meant to say John Benson, not Ben Jonson. Otherwise, this is an excellent overview.
Sonnets from father to unacknowledged son, and therefore creates these words? ".more "rich" in hope "..( Penelope as mother?.)
This wouldn't be the "son" he condemned to death in their only documented encounter now, would it?
Homoherotic. Yet, this would exclude the idea they the sonnets were read in elite circles. You are fantastic.
Sonnet 116....that is not what my English teacher taught. I always thought it was about love not changing even if the person physically does. Who'd guess.
No prove on true neither personal nor gender identity of Shakespeare being claimed found we may suggest the author of a love sonnet addressed to a man could be a woman as well...
No man just talks about sex without an eventual follow through...
my english teacher told me to wwatch this what a cliche
That's hysterical! They weren't clichés until Shakespeare made them so.
@@jeffmeade8643 yes i agree with that
He obviously, neither could, nor would have wanted to "kiss and tell" - it was and probably still is, for the better
I like your videos (and not that I see a bible behind you) but in this one, something you say (just around "before the word existed") strikes me as if you could be having problems with certain aspects of human existence (?) Ellis din not invent people having, or wanting, sexual relationships with persons of the same gender (not jellylike that Gilgamesh and Enkidu would have invented something either) he just "launched" the word for it,,,