humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 17, 9:36 am, "Paul Crowley"
wrote:
> "Peter Farey" wrote in message
>
> news:frljdn$67t$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> It is clear from the grammar that
> the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
> instance. One person is already
> indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
> 'Mr W.H'. Is he also 'our ever-lving
> poet' ? Did he promise himself 'all
> happinesse and that eternity'?
>
> TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
> THESE INSVING SONNETS
> Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
> AND THAT ETERNITIE
> PROMISED
> BY
> OVR EVER-LIVING
> POET
> WISHETH
> THE WELL-WISHING
> ADVENTVRER IN
> SETTING
> FORTH.
> T.T.
> SHAKE-SPEARES,
> SONNETS.
>
> Paul.

The word 'begetter' is punned. It's meant
both figuratively and literally.

William Herbert had a long-time affair with the
exquisite Lady Mary Wroth (her famous Penshurst
portrait used to be online, now there are only
smudgy black and white versions, the original
is justifiably famous).

James I brought Mary Sidney (the niece) to
court in 1604 and married her to one of his
favorites, Robert Wroth. Wroth was a vicious
sonfabitch, an alcoholic who liked to beat up
on Wroth.

Despite the fact that Herbert and Wroth were
first cousins (Mary and Philip Sidney were her
aunt and uncle, their little brother Robert was
Wroth's father) they produced two normal
children. a boy and a girl, both later married well.

So there's your 'begetter.'

The children would have been born between the
time Mary was brought to Court and the printing
of the Shake-speare Sonnets.

Our Poet, who cannot be Shacksper or the earl,
is ribbing his son/cousin Pembroke by calling him
the 'onlie begetter' (of two children by the publication
of the Sonnets in 1609) and as well as the 'begetter'
or inspiration for the Sonnets.


In his dedication to his Epigrammes, Jonson
definitively identifies Herbert and Mr. W. H..
and Francis, Lord Verulam, as Our Poet.

Herbert cannot be Oxford's Mr. W. H. as Oxford
was writing letters trying to get Bridget Vere into
the wealthiest family in England via a marriage to
the heir to the greatest fortune in England (Lord
Henry Herbert's). Mr. W. H. would not inherit
the title for four or so years.

The Oxfordians have done the same thing to Oxford
that the Strats have done to Shacksper. Oxford
is a 'predator on youths' -- well that much was true
but the Rules of Class prevented Oxford from predating
on an earl or an earl's heir and as a true earl Oxford
would not do that.

There's no way that Oxford, who was growing sick
in any event, fell in love with William Herbert. The
whole premise is too icky to contemplate. Oxford
was kept away from Court by the Sumptuary Act
in any even. As soon as Oxford died, Parliament
revoked it.

I cannot believe how much twisting is done to the
lives of Elizabethans just so sectarian factions can
get their hands on the Shakespeare works.