Bremer Shakespeare

Home
Biography
Contact
Search this w ebsite

SEARCH
Cambridge College
Education
Folklore, Dance & Song
History
Homer
Learning / Teaching
Plato
Shakespeare
Sonnet 126: Shakespeares Farewell to his lovely Boy

June 13, 2011 by John Bremer
Preface
The following essay attempts to explore the meaning of Sonnet 126, and, at the same time, to offer some opinions about the Sonnets as
a whole. Much of what is said may be found in one or other of the innumerable commentaries, but it is unnecessary to identify
the sourcesand also very cumbersome. It is to be hoped that there are some original and useful suggestions.
My thanks are due to all those who have loved and written
about the Sonnets, even those with whom I disagree.
Sonnet 126
There is scarcely a statement that can beor has been or will bemade about Shakespeares Sonnets that is not subject to challenge,
denial, refutation, ridicule or, on the contrary, defense, support, and acclaim.
The facts concerning the Sonnets are few and simple. In 1609 a book entitled SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS Never before Imprinted
appeared, published by T. T. (universally agreed to stand for Thomas Thorpe), printed by G. Eld, having been registered at Stationers
Hall on 20 May 1609. On 19 June 1609, it is recorded in the accounts of Edward Alleyn that he purchased for 5d. (that is, five pence) a
book Shaksper sonnettes. It has been alleged, by a few, that this entry in Howshowld stuff is a forgery. Possibly.
Anything further tends to be speculative rather than factual and, in the absence of any new evidence, may be expected to remain so.
The purpose of this essay is to suggest an interpretation of Sonnet 126 (with implications for other Sonnets) but it needs to be placed in
the context of the authors understanding, an understanding which should be made known to the reader. Thus, there follows a
Preamble which is neither contentious nor intended to be provocative; it merely reports the general frame of reference within which the
author has thought and written. The extent to which the interpretation of Sonnet 126 depends upon this framework is unclear and must
remain so. Opinions will vary.
Preamble
The Sonnets number 154 and they may be divided into three main groups. The first group consists of Sonnets 1 through 126; the second
group of Sonnets 127 through 152; and the third group of the last two Sonnets 153-4.
The poems of the first group are all taken to be addressed to a young man and to be printed in the order in which they were written. The
second group, all addressed to the so-called Dark Lady, are also printed in order of writing, but were composed during the writing of the
first group as will be explicated later. The third group (a pair of sonnets) will be explained below.
The young man to whom the first group of sonnets is addressed is taken to be William Herbert, the son of the 2nd Earl of Pembroke
(Henry Herbert) and his wife the former Lady Mary Sidney. He was born on 8 April 1580. His mother was born on 27 October 1561, so
she was not nineteen when she gave birth to him. She had been married to Henry Herbert (as his third wife) in 1577 when he was
forty-three, having been born in 1534.
[The publishers dedication to the onlie begetter of these insuing sonnets. . . Mr. W.H. identifies, for those who can read, William
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Herbert. The title of Mr., while respectful, is not accurate, for at the time of publication W.H. was the 3rd Earl of Pembroke but it
would have been dangerous to have been that explicit; prosecution was possible given the content of the Sonnets. The publisher, not too
unscrupulous by Elizabethan standards, wants it to be clear who the Sonnets were written to without actually naming him. His sales
would increase if this could be titillatingly insinuated.
As it was, it appears that the whole press run must have been suppressed (by the influence of Shakespeare and/or the Earl of Pembroke)
soon after publication since only thirteen copies of the 1609 Sonnets (Q) are extant; there are more than 200 extant copies of the 1623
First Folio.]
The problem for Henry Herbert was that he had no heir. Given the great importance of continuing the family name and the
preservation of its (extensive) property, having an heir was of supreme concern to Henry Herbert, his new (and hopefully fertile) wife,
and the whole extended Herbert family. Without a male heir the name, property and political significance of the Herberts would
disappear.
The birth of William Herbert was a great relief, and it was soon followed by a second son, Philip Herbert, born on 16 October 1584. The
impending catastrophe was averted.
However, the health of Henry Herbert, the Earl, was the cause of much concern, especially after 1590, and so, to ensure the
continuance of the dynasty, it was necessary to arrange a marriage for William Herbert (or Lord Herbert as he was, by courtesy, called)
to produce the expected and needed offspring. By 1595 he was fifteen years old and quite old enough, by Elizabethan aristocratic
standards, to be betrothed and married. If this could be effected, the Herberts could rest more easily.
In 1595, attempts were made to arrange the marriage of William Herbert to Elizabeth Carey, but
this was broken off by late November; in 1597 an attempt was made to marry William to Lord
Burghleys grand-daughter Bridget but this too was broken off; a third attempt was made to
marry William to Elizabeth Vere in late 1597 but this, too, came to nought; in 1598 there was talk
of a marriage with Elizabeth Gawdy Hatton but it turned out to be just talk; in 1599 an attempt
was made to marry William to the niece of the Lord Admiral Howard but by August 1600 the
match was broken off.
Thus for five years the Herbert family worked at ensuring an heir for the Earl, Henry Herbert,
who was very sick in 1599, but they were frustrated at every turn and all their arrangements and
William Herbert
negotiations were useless and for one simple reason. In every case, William Herbert refused to get
married and, indeed, in the Howard match a negotiator reported that he could not find any disposition in this gallant young lord to
marry.
The obdurate refusal of William Herbert to marry was clearly related to his known character. Although a most desirable match (being
the heir to one of the richest families in the kingdom), he himself preferred to indulge in pleasures of all kinds, almost in all excesses
and was always immoderately given up to women. These were the opinions of Lord Clarendon. In June 1600, he seduced Mary
Fitton, one of the Queens maids of honor, (or he was seduced by her), and in February 1601 her pregnancy was known, and she gave
birth to a son the following month. William Herbert admitted paternity but refused to marry Mary Fitton. Both were banished from
Court. The baby soon died.
Another, and more pleasant, side to his character, was that he was fond of books, patronized writers and artists, and spent much time
reading in his study. It must be added that he was addicted to tobacco and smoked a great deal because it relieved the severe headaches
from which he suffered (caused, it is said, by syphilis).
It appears that the Countess of Pembroke, the Earls wife, in her efforts to get her son, William, married and productive of an heir, hit
on the strategy of using his love of poetry to help persuade him to take a bride. She needed a poet, and it so happened that Shakespeare
had become well-known for his two long poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece (published in 1593 and 1594, respectively)
and for his several plays.
She decided to commission Shakespeare to write poems for her son, persuading him to marry, and, as a preliminary, asked him to give
some examples of his ability to write sonnets. Or possibly he thought it prudent to proffer them to re-assure the Countess. In any case,
he wrote the two sonnets that comprise the third group mentioned above, namely, Sonnets 153 and 154. Apparently they were
satisfactory, for he soon began with
From fairest creatures we desire increase

That thereby beauties Rose might never die . . .
The commission of the Countess must have been given some time during the protracted and futile marriage negotiations, probably in
1595, when William Herbert was fifteen.
How and when William Shakespeare met William Herbert is not known. It is not likely that they met before the writing of the Sonnets
began, although they almost certainly knew of each otherShakespeare would have known of Herbert because he was a well-known
aristocratic personality (who first came to Court in the summer of 1598) and a patron of the arts; Herbert would have known of
Shakespeare as the most fashionable and successful poet and playwright of the day.
Whenever it was that Shakespeare began the carrying out of his commission, his sonnets had to be delivered to the reluctant William
Herbert. How that was done we do not know, but sooner or later they must have met, and thus began a relationship which produced
one of the great and immortal beauties of the world.
The Sonnetsrestricted here to Nos. 1 through 126are not a sequence, if by that is meant a number of poems that are connected
logically or thematically, there is no consistent development toward anything that could be called a summation or conclusion. They are
not unified by any intelligible principle. The best that could be said is that, if we choose to regard the Sonnets as a sequence, then we
must understand that the sequence is first and foremost a temporal sequence which is determined by the ever-changing character of
the relationship between Shakespeare and Herbert (and the effects of external events). From Shakespeares point of view, there is only
one change (as will be suggested below) but Herbert, with all the aristocratic arrogance of his kind and his own personal willfulness and
lusts, varies from day to day, or, rather from sonnet to sonnet. Since Herberts character is not stable, neither are the Sonnets.
In 1598, Francis Meres, after mentioning Shakespeares sugred sonnets among his private friends, called him the most passionate
among us to bewaile and bemoane the perplexities of Love. This is only partially true, for Shakespeare also rejoices and exults in his
love. Even if Meres is referring only to the Dark Lady Sonnets (which seems highly probable), the case seems to be that in his
relationship with Herbert, Shakespeare experiences and records in his Sonnets all the feelings that are humanly possible, not in logical
order, but as they were evidenced in himself as circumstances (such as separations) and Herberts conduct altered, while he himself
remained constant. But although this is particular, or made up of particulars, Shakespeares heart, through its constancy, is universal.
Thus the Sonnets are about the universal, love, but not philosophically, not in abstract terms, but as it is manifest in actual human
experience. Or, if you wish, poetically.
Wordsworth was right, in referring to sonnets generally, that with this key Shakespeare unlocked his heart. But it was not the whole
truth, for Shakespeares heart was, in fact, the human heart. And Browning was wrong in saying that if so, the less Shakespeare he
for he assumed that love and sex were inevitably connected, that love and a physical relationship went together between Shakespeare
and William Herbert. There is no hint of it or evidence for it in the Sonnets and, in fact, Sonnet 20 explicitly denies it.
The Sonnets start out fulfilling the Countess of Pembrokes commission, using many devices to appeal to some aspect of William
Herberts mind or character: flattery, immortality, fear of extinction, bountiful generosity, concern for others, indebtedness to Nature
and family, imitation of his own father, beauty, and the defeat of time. But Shakespeares motivation in writing (namely, to discharge
his obligation to the Countess) begins to change and he becomes aware of Herberts beauty on his own account and the whole question
of marriage and offspring first recedes, and then disappears, beginning with Sonnet 15:
And all in war with Time for love of you
As he takes from you, I ingraft you new
thus taking on the role of producing an heir, albeit in a totally new sense. In Sonnet 17 he writes:
But were same childe of yours alive that time,
You should live twice in it, and in my rime.
In Sonnet 18, Shakespeare compares Herbert to a summers day, to the disparagement of the latter, but claims that immortality
originates in him:
So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
And in Sonnet 19, the same claim continues:
Yet do thy worst old Time dispight thy wrong,
Thy love shall in my verse ever live young.
Here it is Herberts love (or, more probably, the love of and for Herbert) that will endure.
By about Sonnet 17, Shakespeare has fallen in love with the young man and writes henceforth for himself and not for the Countess of
Pembroke; all speech and thoughts of marriage and heirs are simply abandoned.
It is not necessary to give an account of the whole relationship as seen from Shakespeares side, as it were, and we have little evidence of
how Herbert regarded it. It would appear that he prized both it and Shakespeare but not to the exclusion of other loves. Certainly
Shakespeare thinks that he is loved but seems well aware that it is not exclusively. Sonnet 33 indicates what Sonnets 34 through 36
confirm: Herbert has betrayed Shakespeare by seducing the woman, his mistress, whom he loves, although the meaning of love is
undoubtedly different and certainly includes sex.
Presumably, the second group of Sonnets, Nos. 127 through 152, (the Dark Lady sonnets) were written about this time, Nos. 127 and
128 before Herberts seduction and the rest after it. If it were assumed (unlikely though it is) that for every sonnet to Herbert another
sonnet was written to Shakespeares mistress, then Sonnets 57 and 58 would correspond to Sonnet 152. These two sonnets have hints
that Herbert and the Dark Lady are still making love with one another:
So true a fool is love, that in your Will.
(Though you do any thing) he thinks no ill. (Sonnet 57)
and
I am to wait, though waiting to be hell,
Not blame your pleasure be it ill or well. (Sonnet 58)
And later (Sonnet 61):
For thee watch I, whilst thou dost wake elsewhere,
From me farre off, with others all too near.
It is not to the purpose of this essay to explore the possibilities in these suggestions, but it must be acknowledged that the meaning of the
events taking place is somewhat obscure. What is not obscure is the anguish of Shakespeares heart. It was certainly known to him, and
must have been apparent to Herbert although his callousness, his heartlessness, is obvious.
The first group of Sonnets, 1 through 126, were not made public, were never intended to be made public, and could only be understood
by Herbert to whom they were all addressed. The second group, the Dark Lady sonnets were public, at least some of them were, and
two of them, Nos. 138 and 144, were printed in The Passionate Pilgrim in 1599; in 1598 Francis Meres had stated that some of the
sugred sonnets had circulated among his private friends. To repeat, the first group, Sonnets 1 through 126, were immediately
intelligible only to the person addressed, namely, Herbert, and they had always been intended for his eye alone.
However, if the series began with an exhortation to marry, if it continued with the profession and expression of Shakespeares love for
Herbert, it seems that, whatever phases or stages that love went through, the Sonnets to him were terminated with No. 126. There is a
certain sadness, a wistfulness, and yet a resignation in the final Sonnets, say from No. 120 onwards. The question then arises as to the
meaning of the ending. Do the Sonnets tell us anything about Shakespeares heart, his thoughts and feelings, as his love relationship
(but not necessarily his love) came to an end?
After such a long preamble, which needs no defenseif any were needed it could be found somewhere in the multitudinous editions and
accounts of the Sonnetsit is time to turn to the last Herbert Sonnet, No.126.
[One final note. If, as contended here, the edition of Q was suppressed as soon as its contents became known, then clearly it had never
been published with the knowledge and consent of Shakespeare. How did Thomas Thorpe obtain the text? We do not know the
immediate source, but the ultimate source must be Shakespeare himself. Nobody but Shakespeare would have had copies of the three
groups of Sonnets: Herbert could have had Sonnets 1 through 126, the Dark Lady could have had Sonnets 127 through 152 (although
some of them were circulated according to Meres), and only the Countess of Pembroke could have had Nos. 153 and 154. It is
inconceivable that they collaborated or that they were induced by an editor or publisher to divulge the poems they had. The only
place where all the sonnets, addressed to each and every one of the three, were together must have been in Shakespeares private
possessions or records.
But, if they were only together (in the way they were printed) in some folder or similar receptacle in Shakespeares personal possession,
and if he had no intention of making them public, how did Thomas Thorpe get hold of them?
The answer, of course, is that they were stolen by some one who knew of their existence and who also knew their cash value to a
publisher like Thorpe. It would seem probable that the thief borrowed Shakespeares original and made copies as quickly and as
surreptitiously as he could. Thorpe could not have been given the originals (they might well be missed by their owner) and so he paid
for a fair copy of them.
This copying could have been done most conveniently when Shakespeare was away from his lodgings in London. (He was probably
living, not in London itself, but across the Thames, in the Liberty of the Clink in Southwark not far from the Globe Theatre.) It happens
that in 1609 there was a severe outbreak of the plague (with more than 4000 deaths) which entailed the closing of the theaters and the
dispersal of the acting companies in tours of the provinces. A ripe moment for the textual thief.
We may deplore such an action, but must also remember that without the thiefs nefarious work we probably would never have known
the Sonnets.
If the Sonnets were copied, as suggested above, it was the copier who numbered them consecutively. Shakespeare would have had no
need to number them. Incidentally, the original numbering of Q used Arabic numerals; it is aggravating and misleading for the
numbering to be in Roman numerals, as has been the practice of some editors.]
********
Sonnet 126
O Thou, my lovely Boy, who in thy power,
Dost hold times fickle glass, his sickle hour:
Who hast by waning grown, and therein showst
Thy lovers withering, as thy sweet self growst.
If Nature (sovereign mistress over wrack)
As thou goest onwards still will pluck thee back,
She keeps thee to this purpose, that her skill
May time disgrace, and wretched minute kill.
Yet fear her O thou minion of her pleasure,
She may detain, but not still keep her treasure!
Her Audite (though delayed) answerd must be,
And her Quietus is to render thee.
(
)
(
)
[Spelling gently modernized, original punctuation mainly kept.]
Many of the commentators call this an envoy or envoi and the poem certainly contains the last words we have from Shakespeare to
William Herbert, words sending him on his way, a farewell. Most of them also point out that the poem has only twelve lines and that it
is made up of couplets. But, as Aristotle said, knowing the fact is different from knowing the reason for the fact.
Before exploring the reasons for this obvious fact, it is worth considering the meaning of each couplet, in isolation, as a preliminary to
considering the poem as a whole. It must be borne in mind, however, that the words were not meant for usindeed, for anyone but
William Herbertso that while we can interpret what they mean publicly, as it were, to us (a situation never intended), we must
remember that in the language, privately developed and shared, of Shakespeare and Herbert there is additional private meanings,
allusions and references that we can, at best, only infer.
Couplet 1.
O Thou, my lovely Boy, who in thy power,
Dost hold times fickle glass, his sickle hour:
It is strange for Shakespeare to address Herbert (who is now the Earl of Pembroke and probably between 20 and 25 years old) as my
lovely Boy, but the poem, in retrospect, as it were, addresses him as he has been and as he has been seen for the period of the preceding
125 sonnets. By giving him the title, Shakespeare is saying goodbye to him, to the him that warranted that title. He has ceased to be
my lovely Boy, but is reminded of what he was. The change could not have pleased him.
The Boy has power over times fickle glass which is, by apposition, his sickle hour. The latter is easier to understand for the sickle
hour is when time becomes the reaper, that is, cuts him down with his sickle (or, more usually, his scythe). The Boy has power
over deathbut (as Herbert would understand) the only reality of such power is within times fickle glass which is taken to mean both
an hour-glass and a looking glass or mirror. As an hour-glass, the Boy has power within the running out of the sands of time; and as
a mirror he has the power to reproduce the beauty he sees when he looks into it. But the mirror-glass is fickle in that what it reflects is
changeable, depending on age, light, position, posture, and so forth.
In other words, just as the address of my lovely Boy takes Herbert back to the beginning of their relationship, so Shakespeare states
again his power to beget an heir, as he exhorted him in the first seventeen Sonnets. That is the power the lovely Boy holds. But it is
significant that Shakespeare no longer refers to the immortality that he, as poet, can bestow. That has been accomplished, and cannot
be extended.
Couplet 2
Who hast by waning grown, and therein showst
Thy lovers withering, as thy sweet self growst.
The Boy has become less (by waning) and, at the same time has become more by growing (grown). Clearly, there is no need to
appeal to Aristotles Law of Non-Contradiction to recognize that the respect in which he has waned will be different from the respect
in which he has grown. The respect in which he has grown, must obviously refer to his age and, subsidiarily, to his responsibility and
status. Basically, he is olderbut he has also, with the death of his father in 1601, become the 3rd Earl of Pembroke and he is about to
take on a new responsibility, as we shall see.
The Boy has grown less by losing, with age, some of his boyish or youthful beauty. He has also lost time, the past being
unrecoverable.
As a result, his lovers wither, which must be taken in two senses. The number of lovers withers or diminishes (and Herberts
promiscuity has already been noted), and at the same time those lovers have withered, that is, are losing their beauty. And all this is
taking place as Herbert himself grows older. It must be observed that Shakespeare himself is one of the lovers. And there is the
premonition that Herbert has lost Shakespeares love.
Couplet 3
If Nature (sovereign mistress over wrack)
As thou goest onwards still will pluck thee back
Nature is personified, and she rules (through the natural course of events, through the principles and processes on which our world is
based) over wrack, that is over wrecking, over destruction. As Herbert goest onwards, that is, as he gets older, even if Nature retards
the natural decline from age, . . .
Couplet 4
She keeps thee to this purpose, that her skill
May time disgrace, and wretched minute kill.
. . . her ultimate purpose, her end, is nevertheless maintaineddelayed not abandonedand (if she does retard it) it is only to show the
limits of times power and by so doing to emphasize how disgracefulhow lacking in gracetimes degrading action is; time supplants
beauty with ugliness. But, at least for the minutes of the delay, Nature can kill or nullify the effects of time.
Couplet 5
Yet fear her O thou minion of her pleasure,
She may detain, but not still keep her treasure!
Yet she, Nature, must be feared, even if you are the minionthe darling, the preferred one, the dependentof her pleasure.
Ultimately, all Nature can do is to detainhold off for a whilethe effects of time, the aging, the corruption of your beauty. She
cannot keep it even though you are precious to her.
Couplet 6
Her Audite (though delayed) answerd must be,
And her Quietus is to render thee.
Eventually, no matter if delayed, Natures audit must be made. This is complicated. First, as spelled in Q, audite is the imperative of
the Latin verb, audio, I hear. Herbert must hear, must understand, that death awaits him and he must respond to that fact. Taking
audite to mean our audit, the question arises whether Nature (the her referred to) conducts the audit or is subject to it. In fact, of
course, it is Herbert himself who is being auditedhe must answer for himself and although it plainly means to surrender his life, there
is also the suggestion that he must give an account of the kind of life he has led and will be giving up. There is no direct reference to the
Last Judgment but in a Christian society it would be hard to escape some uncomfortable, if remote, suggestion of it.
Herbert must, sooner or later, answer Natures auditand its result is already known. He must die, but in doing so he might be
concerned with the reputation he leaves behind, a kind of immortality not without value in an aristocratic world. The references to him
in the Sonnetspromising immortality conferred by the poetare, apparently, completed: Shakespeare promises no more.
The Quietus is the abbreviated form of quietus est, the formulaic phrase written on accounts, meaning He is quit, that is, he owes
nothing more. It might correspond to the modern paid in full; he is paid up. But Nature, in place of such a written formula, renders
or surrendersHerbert himself; she gives him up to death. And he is rendered in the sense of melting away or of dissolvingO,
that this too too solid flesh would melt, /Thaw and resolve itself into a dew! Human rendering is to return to dust.
(Couplet 7)
(
)
(
)
In Q, there are two empty linesindicated as belonging to the poem by the provision of brackets. It is highly probable that they existed
in the Shakespearean manuscript that was copied for Thorpe and that they were present in the original that was sent to William
Herbert. By their wordless presence they indicate that something is missing and Herbert must have understood that and knew to what
it referred. How is this to be understood?
********
Before answering this question, it is worth re-iterating that there are three obvious features of 126 that almost immediately meet the
eye. One is that there are only twelve lines instead of the usual and expected fourteen; another is that the couplets rhyme instead of the
usual three quatrains with cross-rhyming, followed by a couplet; and the third is the emphasis of the non-existent last two lines, whose
non-existent existence is asserted by the use of brackets. It will be suggested that these three apparently formal features are an essential
part of the material or substantive meaning of what Shakespeare, in his envoi, sent to William Herbert. One thing is clear, and that is
that there has been a change, things are not as they had been, the living sequence of the Sonnets has ended.
Attention is drawn to the couplets, to the couples, to the pairings. But while the rhyming couplets are apparent, it emerges that they
hint at what has been changed namely, the quatrainsas if to emphasize the change. The first two couplets, if regarded as a pseudoquatrain, are united in a common theme: the effects of times fickle glass on my lovely Boy. The next two couplets are similarly
united in theme: Nature may limit time, but maintains her purpose. The final pair of couplets, together, asserts that even if Nature may
delay, she has her audit, death. It must also be noted that the basic metaphor of these last two couplets, of this final pseudo-quatrain, is
from accountingthat there is a debt to be paid. The relevant terms are treasure, audit, answered, quietus, and render
These are, as it were, shadow quatrains, which, by their shadowy quality, bring to attention their real absence. They also, in the same
shadowy way, lead to an expectation of the regular sonnets usual concluding coupletwhich, lo and behold!is conspicuous by its
absence. But, as Samuel Butler observed, Lines 11 and 12 have every appearance of being a full close. It appears that Sonnet 126
(which is not a sonnet in the technical sense) both is and is not complete, both is and is not a sonnet.
Katherine Duncan-Jones comments
. . . since these brackets enclose an expected couplet, they may image
a failure to couple. The poet had warned in 8.14 that Thou single wilt
prove none: unless he couples himself in marriage, he will fail to preserve
his beauty for prosperity. Even the poets black lines (63.13) are finally
missing. The poets verse is incomplete, and so is the youths life.
********
There have been many attempts to date the Sonnets, some more noted for their ingenuity than their sense. Perhaps the most sober
judgment is that of J.B. Leishman who says that they were begun before 1599 and concluded after 1603. Perhaps 1598 to 1604.
I take it that Sonnet 107 and its mortal moon refers to the death of Queen Elizabeth on 24 March 1603. One consequence of this
eclipse was that Herberts banishment from Court (because of the Fitton affair) ended, and he could return to the welcoming and
favorable Court of King James I. The disgraceful affair with Mary Fitton, dating from the middle of 1600 to its revelation in February
1601, may be reflected in Sonnets 93 through 96; the separation of Shakespeare from his love, Herbert, due to his imprisonment in the
Fleet, may have inspired Sonnet 97 (How like a winter hath my absence been . . . and Sonnet 98 (From you have I been absent in the
spring . . .). It appears that Herbert was imprisoned for only a month (February-March 1601), after which he was confined to his
estate at Wilton, but that place (80 or so miles from London) was not readily accessible to Shakespeare with his theater duties. And
Herbert was later, at the end of 1602, given permission to go abroad which entailed a more distant separation.
However all this may be, it is certain that in the private and intimate Sonnets of Shakespeare, while the subject is always his love for
Herbert and all its attendant emotions, external events impinge on his relationship and sometimes get reflected in what he writes. Some
possible examples are contained in the last paragraph, to which may be added Sonnet 104 of 1601, the so-called birthday sonnet,
Herbert being born on 8 April; the Sonnet also indicates that their relationship had begun three years earlier, that is, in April 1598.
Shakespeare seems to have been singularly non-judgmental about the Fitton affair, and Sonnet 96 (Some say thy fault is youth, some
wantonness . . .) ends:
. . . I love thee in such sort
As, thou being mine, mine is thy good report.
But this only replicates his response to the seduction of the Dark Lady, referred to in Sonnets 35 and 36, a matter which touched him
much more nearly. The two episodes invite comparison because the concluding couplets of Sonnets 36 and 96 are identical.
Forgiving of (or possibly indifferent to) Herberts latest sexual exploits, Shakespeare maintains that his love is not idolatry (Sonnet 105):
Kind is my love today, tomorrow kind,
Still constant in a wondrous excellence;
Therefore my verse, to constancy confined,
One thing expressing, leaves out difference.
But although constant in his love, Shakespeare is not precluded from rebuking, reproving, and even chastising Herbert for what he
has done, or what he has become. He is blunt in the extreme, regardless of Herberts aristocratic status:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds:
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds. (Sonnet 94)
He even urges him in the same Sonnet to self-control:
They that have powr to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmoved, cold, and to temptation slow; . . .
and had urged it earlier in relation to Shakespeare himself (Sonnet 41):
Ay me, but yet thou mightst my seat forbear,
And chide thy beauty and thy straying youth,
Who lead thee in their riot even there
Where thou art forced to break a twofold truth:
Hers, by thy beauty tempting her to thee,
Thine, by thy beauty being false to me.
But to no avail. There is no better nature to appeal to.
For bluntness, the concluding couplet of Sonnet 69 has no equal:
But why thy odor matcheth not thy show,
The soil is this, that thou dost common grow
Although the soil must mean the grounds for the churls their thoughts, it also indicates that Herbert is dirtyas well as common.
An external event, external, that is, to Shakespeares relation to Herbert, would obviously have been the death on 19 January 1601 of his
father, Henry Herbert, the 2nd Earl of Pembroke, and the elevation of William Herbert to be the 3rd Earl. This occurred two weeks
before the disclosure of Mary Fittons pregnancy, so that, assuming the dating suggested above, some mention of Herberts response
might be sought in Sonnets 90 to 95 but it will be sought in vain. The best that can be said is that Shakespeare writes in Sonnet 91:
Some glory in their birth, some in their skill,
Some in their wealth, some in their bodys force,
Some in their garments, though new-fangled ill,
Some in their hawks and hounds, some in their horse:
But these make no difference to his love:
Thy love is better than high birth to me.
Herbert may have just been elevated to the status of Earl, but it does not affect Shakespeare and the nature and manner of his love.
There is a hint or suggestion, perhaps, that Herberts new exalted status had made him more conceited or condescending.
Indeed, William Herbert seems to have experienced no grief at the death of his father. Tresham Lever in his The Herberts of Wilton
writes (p.63):
But though the father had shown justice and consideration, the
son (it must be admitted) had evinced a somewhat cold, detached
attitude during his fathers illness. The loyal Rowland Whyte
cannot help demonstrating in his letters that Sir Robert Sidney
appeared much more concerned at Lord Pembrokes failing health
than did his son and heir; and on the very day of his fathers death
the son had written anxiously to Queen Elizabeth and to Sir Robert
Cecil about his prospects. I am now at last fallen into your hands
against my will. In the midst of my sorrows, I have taken the
boldness to write unto her Majesty, who if it please not to
deal very graciously with me, I shall prove a poorer Earl than I
was before a Lord. In fact, his father had left him a large fortune,
so his plea of poverty was complete rubbish; but, even if it had
been justified, his appeal for bounty would have come better, we
feel, not on the very night of his fathers death but at the earliest
after the funeral.
********
In Sonnet 108 a change seems to be coming over Shakespeare. As Katherine Duncan-Jones says:
Reaching 108 . . . the poet takes stock of his achievement. He can
find no new way of representing either himself or the youth in words,
but is compelled to reiterate what he has often said before; in so doing
he continually rediscovers his first love and the young mans first
beauty, revivified in language though vanished in nature.
One could go further and say that, at this time, the poet is taking stock not only of his achievement but also of his relationship to
Herbert, and not only of his relationship to Herbert, but also of the character of Herbert himself. Initially, Shakespeare was struck with
the beautymainly the physical beautyof Herbert, but now after three years or more he sees that while the physical beauty has
remained, only slightly deteriorated, the spiritual beauty, whatever beauty of soul Herbert had possessed, has been vitiated by increasing
ugliness.
The absence of Shakespeareseemingly voluntarily (Sonnets 109/110)has given him the occasion to consider and re-consider his
relationship to Herbert, and the Sonnets from 108 onwards seem, in part, to constitute a kind of meditation on it and a resolution of its
meaning. Part of that meaning is the re-affirmation of the power and nature of the love that he had felt and still felt. That wasand
always will bereal:
To me, dear friend, you never can be old . . .
But while the love is eternal, its object is not. There are, it seems, three Herberts for Shakespeare. There is his original Herbert (1) as he
was when first your eye I eyed: or my sweet boy. There is the current Herbert (2) who, although slightly aged, has what seems
your beauty still, abstracted from all else (the differences), getting its life from (1). And then there is Herbert (3), the actual, total
living man with all the beauties and uglinesses that he currently exhibits.
Shakespeare was and always will be in love with Herbert (1). And his numbers, his Sonnets, are eternal because his love was and is
the same. The image of Herbert (1) contained in, or giving life and reality to, Herbert (2) prompts the loving and commendatory
remarks in such Sonnets as 106 through 112, but Shakespeare is increasingly aware of Herberts blemished character and is increasingly
intrigued by his relationship to his own poetry and to time, and even claims that he himself (not Herbert) will live in this poor rhyme.
He is separating in his soul the three Herberts and allocating to each one its proper place; it is weak and inadequate to say that he
remembers Herbert (1), for his beauty became a part of Shakespeares soul, a part of his very being. When seeing Herbert (2), or just
thinking of him, he is reminded of Herbert (1); he cannot forget the original, but Herbert (2) is only the recall of what once was. The
major problem was how to deal with Herbert (3) who, in so many ways, such as in the Fitton affair and the death of his father, had
shown himself to be anything but beautiful.
Herbert (1) no longer existed, except in eternity and Shakespeares soul. Herbert (2) was unreal in that his being depended upon Herbert
(1) who no longer had human existence. There remained Herbert (3), and it became clear to Shakespeare that he neither had nor
wanted a relationship with him. But his former love and loyalty compelled him to tell Herbert (3) that their relationship was over and
to explicate its demise. He also needed to clear or cleanse his own soul by telling it.
This was accomplished by Sonnet 126.
The occasion was the marriage (or the announcement of the marriage) of the same William Herbert who had renounced marriage, to
Mary Talbot, the daughter of the 7th Earl of Shrewsburythe most vindictive and acrimonious of men. The ceremony took place on 4
November 1604.
When Sonnet 126 was written we do not know, nor do we know when Herbert received it, or whether he read and understood it, totally
or in part. But its general meaning must have been clear to him when he considered it in the context of the whole sequence of Sonnets
116 through 126.
Somewhat surprisingly, Sonnet 116 begins abruptly with:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; . . .
If, at this time, Shakespeare had just learned of Herberts intended marriage the Sonnet says two important things, the first, that
marriage is to be understood as of true minds, and the second, that Shakespeare would not admit impediments, that is, sees or has
no objections. There is no cause for jealousy. It would not be inappropriate to tell Herbert (by making a direct yet independent
statement) that marriage is of minds (or souls) not bodies, and that marriagehis marriage, at leastshould be based on love, as
Shakespeares relation to him undoubtedly was:
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Sonnet 117 claims that Shakespeare may have been absent from Herbert only to prove the constancy and virtue of your love. But
Sonnet 118 asserts that:
But thence I learn, and find the lesson true,
Drugs poison him that so fell sick of you.
The next, Sonnet 119, indicates that the poet, after confusion about the relationship, is recovering and is strengthened in love. Whatever
Shakespeares faults (real or imagined by Herbert), the poet has suffered and has profited by the fact that Herbert were once unkind
presumably referring to Herberts seduction of the Dark Lady. Sonnet 121, by referring to false reputation implies that Herbert had
been offended by misrepresentations of Shakespeares actions.
Sonnet 122 acknowledges a gift from Herbert but one which Shakespeare has not keptbut which he does not need to keep since he
well remembers Herbert, but, more importantly, by accepting and keeping it he would have implicitly acknowledged a relationship that
he no longer had. Sonnet 123 is an apostrophe addressed to Time and has nothing personal connected to Herbert, and is continued in
124 with the denial of the power of politics to affect love; but again the references are general and in no way related to Herbert
personally and directly. But they are indirectly.
Whatever the cause, these Sonnets indicate (but only from Shakespeares point of view) a disturbance in the relationship. Herberts
response was ultimately conciliatory (by his gift of 122) but Shakespeare essentially refuses it by giving it away. He accepts it and yet
does not accept it. An outright rejection of the gift would have been offensively provocative, and an outright acceptance would have
indicated a relationship with Herbert that Shakespeare did not feel, and also would have implied that his love was not unconditional,
but needed external flatterings. Sonnets 123 and 124 distance him even further by speaking of the abstractions of Time and politics.
Sonnet 125 has Shakespeare telling Herbert that it made no difference that he bore the canopy (perhaps at Herberts wedding or at his
installation as Earl) or that he had honored him by attendance at such a ceremony. He rejects the value of form and favor, asserting
that those who depend upon it often lose all. Rather than that:
No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,
And take thou my oblation, poor but free,

Which is not mixed with seconds, knows no art,
But mutual render, only me for thee.
Hence, thou suborned informer, a true soul
When most impeached, stands least in thy control.
It is highly doubtful that any belted Earl was spoken to so candidly and so proudly. Shakespeare tells Herbert that he should hold him as
obsequious, that is, to see him as respectful, but yet to accept his oblation, his offering, namely himself, as poor but free, without
any admixture of seconds or inferior elements as gifts and without any art or the manipulation of flattery. The exchange of love is
mutual, only me for thee. The identity of thou suborned informer is highly ambiguousit refers simultaneously to those who had
lied to Herbert about Shakespeare, to Time itself which boasts that the poet had changed, and to Herbert himself, who is told that
Shakespeare stands least in thy control.
It is upon this declaration of freedom and equality that Shakespeare sends Herbert on his way, says farewell to him, writes him his
envoi, gives him his quietus. It appears that Herberts marriage provides the occasion and the vehicle for Shakespeares final words.
On reading Sonnet 126, Herbert, like all of us, must have been struck by the structuring of couplets. They mimicked his promiscuous
couplings, notably with Mary Fitton, and finally referred to his marriage, in which he was coupled with Mary Talbot, a coupling that
was empty and had no content (either because it had not yet taken place, or because it had not been consummated, or because it was
sterile, or because it was without loveeven without lust or desire: or any or all of these). But if the poem was using his marriage more
or less as a metaphor, what was it saying about it? It couldand probably shouldbe read literally first. In O thou my lovely Boy
Herbert recognizes himself, at least as he was and was thought of throughout his relationship with Shakespeare. This must have been
mixed with recognition that the salutation was scarcely appropriate any longer; he had aged, was no longer Shakespeares beloved;
perhaps he felt some anger to be addressed in such a manner, and to recognize the irony of it. The vacant couplet tells him that the
relationship is now empty, devoid of Shakespeares love.
The first pseudo-quatrain reminds him of his own power, and more especially of its limits and the inevitability of death. The second tells
him that even if his aging is gradual it will still result in death. And the third that he should be fearful since he is subject to Natures
audit. These terse and somewhat ominous words could only recall what was said in so many ways in the first seventeen Sonnets;
And nothing gainst Times scythe can make defense
Save breed to brave him, when he takes thee hence.
But the beauty of those Sonnets is now absent, mainly because Shakespeare no longer writes from dawning love. And, whatever
Shakespeares personal motive or intent at that time, the public purpose was to satisfy the family need for an heira male child born in
wedlock. Although this was a requirement for the family name and power to continue, it was not totally ignobleand certainly required
William Herbert to submit his own selfish desires to something greater. This he would not do.
The blank last couplet, hemmed in by brackets that resemble the shape of an hour-glass, tells Herbert that he must couple, that is, his
bride awaits him. And that begins to translate the metaphor in Herberts mind.
It is true that his bride awaits him, but not as the marriage of true minds for the accounting vocabulary of the last four lines
confronts Herbert with what everybody knew, namely, that Mary Talbot was one of the richest heiresses available, the daughter of the
(venomous) 7th Earl of Shrewsbury. That was his reason for marrying her. Prior to 1601, Herbert had refused marriage, renounced it
in fact, using the pretext of not liking any potential bride, and presumably wanting to be at liberty to explore and exploit any available
woman. But in 1604 he marries for money, having spent much of his fathers considerable fortune in an irresponsible and prodigal
way. He needed to re-stock his coffers; marriage was the means.
Shakespeare was not squeamish or overly-nice about such matters, but that the sweet boy should so crassly marry for money was,
perhaps, the final revelatory fact that told him that his relationship with Herbert had to end, or rather, that it had ended, for the object
of his love, Herbert (1), no longer existed. The present soul or character of Herbert could not merit or sustain his love; its one-time
beauty had been supplanted, overlaid, or destroyed by so many acts of ugliness, culminating in a loveless mercenary marriage. The
inability of the poet (stated in Sonnet 108) to find new ways of expressing his love is due to the fact that Herbert is no longer lovable.
The lack is in Herbert, not in the poet.
This message to Herbert, although unstated explicitly, was clear, but there was a final meaning to the last blank couplet. The poem was
incomplete and so was Mary Talbot. She was a dwarf.
In Sonnet 126, Herbert is told, without words, that his life, like his wife and his marriage, is deformed, lacking integrity, unity or
completeness, and, therefore, is without beauty.
********
One could imagine a lesser man than Shakespeare writing a farewell letter to Herbert:
After so many lascivious couplings and conquests, Your Grace has
finally committed himself to the lawful relationship of
marriage,
with all its domestic and financial advantages. No mention need
be made of the latter since the Earl of Shrewsburys dwarfish
and unattractive daughter is well-known for her economic
assets, which, I am sure, Your Grace will enjoy to the full.
Domestically, it would, perhaps, be better if physically she
were as well endowed as she is financially, but no doubt the
prospect of a legitimate heir will counteract any repugnance
Your Grace might have to the act of coupling with a diminutive,
not to say deformed or half-formed partner. If the act were
devoid of desire, if lust were lost, Your Grace could recall the
while the triumphs of your fast-receding youth and relish them.
Of course, any fruit of such connection would be subject to
all the hazards attendant upon breeding with inferior stock, but
no doubt Your Graces desire for an heir would overcome any
such concern and your own virility, so often and clearly displayed,
would more than compensate for any defect in the mother.
Apart from such domestic and intimate affairs (which will
undoubtedly be watched closely by the Earl of Shrewsbury,
hopefully with less than his customary asperity), Your Grace
will enjoy, whenever you happen, from time to time, to be at
home, the companionship of a woman not yet old whose modest
appearance will only enhance the mental and spiritual qualities
that no doubt her father, vitriolic though he is, has inculcated in her.
More than that, of course, Your Grace will be proud to
present
her at Court as a fitting adjunct to your own beauty and magnificence
which, by contrast, will be enhanced.
The address of my lovely Boy may seem presumptuous
but it will no doubt call to Your Graces mind those seemingly
far-distant days when your youthful beauty inspired others,
especially your poet friend. His love of what you were then
continues brightly, even though its object, your own precious self,
has become tarnished with the passage of time.
It is to be hoped that Your Graces character will so manage
the various financial and domestic voids in life to your satisfaction
and advantage, and that you will find all the affectionate comfort
that may be expected from such a well-contrived coupling. Henceforth
you will enjoy assets not sonnets.
Of course, it is unthinkable that Shakespeare could have written such a heavy-handed and acrimonious envoi. The least important
reason is that it could well have subjected him to legal and political repercussions of a most unwelcome kind. More significant is the fact
that it is completely out of the character of the Shakespeare we know from the Sonnets and elsewhere. He is well able to speak clearly
and bluntly, as we have seen, but always in a descriptive, non-judgmental way; there is never an edge to his comments, an edge that, in
itself, would cause pain to Herbert. There is irony perhaps, but never sarcasm or spite. And there is no sense of retribution or revenge,
no petty unpleasantness, no name-calling. He maintains a good report.
Shakespeares love enables himcompels himto stand above all such things and to speak truthfully, but to do it in such a way that
Herbert is invited to reflect on his own character and actions; it is an invitation that he may or may not have accepted, but that is his
business not Shakespeares. If, on occasion, he did accept it and reflect on it, what he saw of himself might well have caused him pain
but the pain would, at least, have been caused by the deformity within himself, not by its being pointed out. There was the chance that
Herbert could have judged himself and thereby learned; love has no greater gift to bestow, and Shakespeare invites him to learn. Of
course, he could have been pained because his ugly deformity (which is only a lack of love, a proper love of himself) had been drawn to
his attention by someone else, by Shakespeare. It is doubtful that he ignored what the poet wrote. But we do not know, and perhaps
must accept the factas apparently Shakespeare didthat by his marriage to Mary Talbot he confirmed his inability to have the beauty
of soul that the beauty of his body once had promised.
The imagined and impossible farewell letter above does not prevent us from making some declarative statement about the meaning
Sonnet 126 had for Herbert. Amongst other things it could be read as saying:
1. You are no longer my lovely Boy, as you once were.
2. You have coupled freely with several partners.
3. You care nothing for your family name and heritage.
4. You couple now for money.
5. You do not couple for love or beauty.
6. Your marriage and your life are empty.
7. You may beget an heir, but not in love.
8. The Sonnets are ended.
All this and more could have been understood by Herbert, even though Sonnet 126 says it without ever saying it. Of course, through
lack of intelligence or through excessive self-love or for some other reason, Herbert might not have understood what he was being told.
Except for the fact that it was final. There would be no more Sonnets. That was unmistakable.
[Incidentally, as far as we know, Herbert never wrote anything to Shakespeare (even though he was reported to compose the
occasional sonnet himself), and Shakespeare wrote only sonnets to Herbertnot letters. If this is so, as it appears, it is worth considering
how such restrictionsof one-sided communication by sonnet aloneaffected or helped to define the relationship and its love. It
certainly prevented the love from being argumentative, subject to protestation, the outcome of negotiation, or dialectical.]
There is no evidence as to how Herbert regarded his more than three year relationship with Shakespeare. He must have thought of it
highly enough for it to continue for as long as it did; and he must have thought highly enough of Shakespeares love not to end it, but
not so highly that it prevented him from acts of betrayal, of unfriendliness. If it was known abroad, as it undoubtedly must have been,
Herbert might have enjoyed the cachet of being loved by the fashionable poet and playwright. All this is speculation and all we can be
sure of is that the relationship began, continued for more than three years, and ended. All with no wordknown to usfrom Herbert. It
does appear further that there were no repercussions to Shakespeares termination; he tells Herbert that their relationship is over
(without ever saying so), but we have no evidence that Herbert sought any kind of reprisal or inflicted any kind of penalty on the poet.
If this is so, it gives at least some glimmer of decency and gratitude to a character sorely in need of both.
********
To return to Herberts marriage: it took place on 4 November 1604, and was celebrated at Wilton with festivities that included a great
tournament. We know little about the ceremony and little about the quality of the relationship between the newly married couple. The
opinion of most probably echoed that of Clarendon who wrote that Herbert paid much too dear for his wifes fortune by taking her
person into the bargain. This did not augur well for marital happiness.
Rowland Whyte, the servant of Robert Sidney, Herberts uncle, wrote encouragingly to the brides father, the Earl of Shrewsbury, but as
might be expected he painted as rosy a picture as was possible. Four months after the wedding, he wrote:
My Lord Pembroke is well, and surely is as honourable
a kind husband as any is in Great Britain. My Lady much
joys in it. And gives him every day more and more cause to
increase it; God bless them both with children and long life.
My Lady is much honoured by all his friends, and all strive
who shall love her best.
A few weeks later, Whyte wrote:
Let me assure your Honour that my Lady Pembroke is very
much respected by all her Lords friends, she worthily deserving it.
But all was not wellat least in the rumor and gossip that pervaded the Courtfor he continues:
It may be the indiscretion of some that love tatling may buz
out the contrary, which occasions this protestation of mine to your
honour; and I doubt not but that her Ladyship doth live, and shall
ever live, as well contented as any lady in England, if others suffer
her to see and enjoy this happiness.
In 1616 Herbert and his wife had a son, James, who died at birth. The only other notice of any child born to them was recorded in 1620,
at which time both Herbert and his wife were 40, and they had been married for 16 years. A letter says of the Countess, that greatbellied lady is now going to lie down at Wilton, and two months later a boy, Henry, was born. The child was so weak that the parents
did not trouble to invite the King to the christening. He did not survive, dying in 1621, and nothing more is heard of him. Certain it is
that Herbert begat no surviving heir, for when he died in 1630 he was succeeded as Earl of Pembroke by his brother Philip. It almost
seems as if Herbert never wanted an heir.
Herbert may have had no surviving heir, but he did beget other children, with his cousin, Lady Mary Sidney, who was niece to the
dowager Countess of Pembroke, the former Mary Sidney, and daughter of Robert Sidney, the brother of Philip Sidney.
Lady Mary Sidney was born on 18 October 1587 and grew up in the midst of a family distinguished for its literary accomplishments.
Since her father, Robert Sidney, was a soldier-diplomat and the governor of Flushing in the Netherlands, he was abroad for long periods
of time, so Lady Mary spent much of her childhood at Wilton, at Penshurst Place, and Baynards Castle in London. Theseespecially
Penshurstwere known as literary and cultural centers; Ben Jonson, a frequent guest, wrote a poem To Penshurst. Lady Mary had a
formal education, under tutors guided by her mother, a most unusual circumstance at the time. She danced before the Queen at
Penshurst and again at Court in 1602.
At the command of the King, Lady Mary Sidney was married to Sir Robert Wroth of Loughton Hall, Essex in 1604. The King was a
staunch hunting companion of Sir Robert. The marriage was not a happy one, for the husband was a drunkard and wastrel, and Ben
Jonson wrote that my Lady Wroth is unworthily married on a jealous husband. Lady Mary was known for her literary activities and
her dance performance in several masques. After ten years of marriage, she gave birth, in February 1614, to a son, James, but her
husband died a month later of gangrene. Her son died two years later and thus the whole Wroth estate passed to her late husbands
closest relative, leaving the Lady Mary with little money and enormous debts.
It is not known when, but Lady Mary had entered into a close relationship with her cousin, William Herbert, the 3rd Earl of Pembroke;
they had known each other since childhood and shared many literary interests. They had at least two children, a daughter, Catherine,
and a son, William. It may be charitably assumed that their intimacy occurred after the death of Lady Marys husband in 1614, there
being no evidence to the contrary. Their children were certainly born later, one of them, apparently, early in 1620. The Sidney family
records have no mention of this liaison and its outcome (the papers probably deliberately destroyed), but the Herbert papers record that
Catherine married a Mr. Lovel neare Oxford; it seems that he was tutor in the house of Robert Sidney (Mary Wroths brother) and it
has been suggested that their daughter was the woman who was later known as Aphra Behn. William, the son, was helped by William,
4th Earl of Pembroke, to a brave living in Ireland where he served as a soldier and died, unmarried.
[In 1604 there is a curious estrangement between Herbert and his mother, the Countess of Pembroke, who, in a letter, describes a
monster as hath divided myne owne from me, he that was held deerest part of me. There are no specifics of the monster but it is
certainly suggested that it is a person who has come between her and her son. For ten years Herbert refused to have anything to do
with his mother, and deliberately avoided her.
From the wording of the Countesss letter, it would appear that Herbert was the one who was offended and who distanced himself. It
seems unlikely that the Countess had done anything to provoke her son (although it has been suggested that it was some sexual act of
hers that was the cause; possible but unlikely, and with no evidence). If it was not an act, then it must have been what she said to
Herbert, and, if it was, it must have involved a third party. The obvious candidates were Lady Mary Talbot and Lady Mary Wroth. It is
totally speculative, but perhaps the Countess either reprimanded her son on his forthcoming marriage to the Earl of Shrewsburys
daughter (and one can imagine what she might have said about that mercenary event), or she chastised him on his relation to his
cousin and her niece, Lady Mary Sidney (about to be married to Wroth). What probably offended Herbert was an unwanted
judgmental interference in his sexual activities, which were clearly important to him and about which he was singularly sensitive. The
fact of the separation from his mother is established; the reasons for it are not.]
In 1621, Lady Mary published a book, Urania, the first original fiction by an English woman. After a brief period of notoriety, the book
was withdrawn, seemingly because it depicted with too much realism the social and sexual activities in the Court of King James. This
was scandalous and the nobility were deeply offended, Lady Mary being called a hermaphrodite in sense, in Art a monsterbut the
real problem was that many of the books characters and their activities were readily recognizable as contemporaries and their
ancestors. After publication and under pressure, Lady Mary withdrew and finally left Court in 1622 and was abandoned by William
Herbert. She died about 1652.
We do not know if Herberts wife, the former Mary Talbot then Countess of Pembroke, knew of all this and, if she did, what her
response was. It is curious to note that between his marriage in 1604 (when presumably it was consummated) and an acts resulting in
a still-birth in 1616 and the birth of a weakly son in 1620, the only known sexual activity of William Herbert was with Lady Mary
Wroth, probably between 1614 and 1620. How we are to understand this is a mystery.
The later lives of William Herbert and his wife are not relevant to this essay, but it is well-known that William Herbert was a favorite of
King James (and also, it should be added, of his wife, Queen Anne) and later of King Charles. He and his brother Philip were very
influential at Court and William was made Lord Chamberlain in 1616. They were the incomparable pair of brethren, both dedicatees
of the Shakespeare First Folio of 1623. William died in 1630 and was succeeded by his brother Philip who, in turn, died on 23 January
1650, leaving six children.
The mother of William and Philip Herbert, the Dowager Countess of Pembroke, the former Lady Mary Sidney, died on 25 September
1621. She could be claimed as the real begetter of these insuing Sonnets although Thomas Thorpe would never have known it.
William Herberts wife, the former Lady Mary Talbot, either went insane or was so declared (for the financial benefit of the Herberts)
and died in 1649 as the Dowager Countess of Pembroke. Her father, the 7th Earl of Shrewsbury, had died in May 1616, two weeks after
Shakespeare.
********
As far as we know, Sonnet 126 was the last communication that Shakespeare sent to Herbert, the last one Herbert received from
Shakespeare. How the termination of the relationship affected each of them can only be imagined. Nor can the residue of the
relationship, its lasting effects upon them, be decided with any certainty.
Herbert, the lesser man, is perhaps more easy to understand. That within his own capacity he loved Shakespeare cannot be doubted, but
the limits of that capacity, while restricted, are difficult to determine. He seems to have been of a selfish and self-regarding character,
somewhat callous and indifferent, unfeeling towards others; his use of women was notorious and was morally abusive if not physically
so. But he took no responsibility for his affairs. All this suggests an insecurity, a sense of personal inadequacy that compelled him to seek
re-assurance of his personal worth.
Shakespeares love for him was unquestionable because it was unquestioning. It was unconditional, and Herbert must have known
that, not because of his own acuity, but because of Shakespeares direct honesty and faithfulness and his ability to see what Herbert did
and was and yet still give him his good report. Although Herbert had power, wealth and influence, it does not appear that Shakespeare
ever asked or expected him to use it for his personal or professional advantage; he made no demand on Herbert except, of course, the
most difficult and greatest possible demand, namely, to love and be loved, equally, me for thee.
To Herberts character, thus understood, must be added his social and political status which gave him superiority and a sense of
superiority over everyone in the kingdom except the monarch. The Sonnets show no indication that Herbert was condescending and
treated Shakespeare as anything but an equalno indication that is, until Sonnet 91 when he inherited his fathers position as Earl of
Pembroke. Even then Shakespeare can gently but firmly point out:
Thy love is better than high birth to me . . .
with the expectation that Herbert would understand and reciprocate.
Leaving on one side his sexual proclivities and activities, it appears that, under both King James I and his son Charles I, Herbert later
became a somewhat different man. Of course, his self-worth was bolstered by his return to Court after Elizabeths ban, the favor of the
King, and his installation as a Knight of the Garter, and many honors and appointments. The following account of his character is
given by Tresham Lever in The Herberts of Wilton:
We are told both by Clarendon in a famous passage of his History of
the Rebellion and by Aubrey in his Brief Lives that Pembroke was
the most universally loved and esteemed young man of his age. He was
well-bred, well-educated, a graceful speaker, a ready wit, mild-mannered,
affable and charming. He was long at Court, yet so disinterested that
he was greeted with regard and affection by his fellow courtiers, most of
whom were continually clamouring for place. But it must be admitted
that this disinterestedness was that of a wealthy, unambitious man with
nothing to gain for himself. He liked an easy life; anything, or almost
anything, for peace was his motto. He preferred to swim with the tide rather
than strike out manfully upstream against the flow of measures of which he
did not approve. For his person, said Bacon, he was not effectual. He
easily passed from hot opposition to the tamest submission, as Gardiner well
puts it. With an intelligence greater than his power of will, he was the Hamlet
of Charles Court.
To what extent this not-unadmirable character was due to the influence of Shakespeare we cannot know, but it is striking that Herberts
character here is totally lacking in ambition, totally lacking in that arrogant assertiveness that would have separated him from
Shakespeare. If the epithet always attached to Shakespeares name was gentle, in its own way, it could also be attributed to Herbert
after 1604.
Aubrey calls Herbert the greatest Maecenas of his time. One striking example of his generosity is recorded: when Sir Gervase Elwes
was hung in 1615 for complicity in a murder, the King granted Herbert his estates, worth more than 1000 a year; Herbert bestowed
them on the widow and her children. This is quite remarkable and suggests a character very different from the one that had rejected
Mary Fitton. Perhaps his relationship with Shakespeare had changed him.
In 1625, the Countess of Bedford wrote of Herbert that he was the only honest hearted man imployed [at Court] that I know now left
to God and his countrie, and Lord Clarendon said of him that he had fame and reputation with all men, being the most universally
beloved and esteemed of any of that age, and despite having a great office in the Court, he made the Court itself better esteemed, and
more reverenced in the country. Clarendon, however, continues by referring to Herberts viceasserting that it was to women that
he sacrificed himself, his precious time, and much of his fortune.
But what of gentle Shakespeare? Even if, within the limits of his capacities and circumstances, Herbert loved Shakespeare, that love
had not the intensity, the devotion, the loyalty, the patience, the acceptance of suffering, the generosity of spirit, the forgiveness, the
selflessnessin short, the purity of Shakespeares love. In the circumstances, Herberts love might have been remarkable, but
Shakespeares love would have been remarkable in any circumstances.
Without dwelling on the development of Shakespeares love, it is possible to consider it as expressed in different Sonnets. It is doubtful
that it is correct to speak of development at all since love, as Shakespeare saw it and knew it, arose quite suddenly:
Dead shepherd, now I find thy saw of might:
Who ever loved that loved not at first sight?
Shakespeares account is that he fell in love with beauty, the beauty inherent in Herbert. Those who speak or write of homosexuality
and homoeroticism are sadly mistaken and only exhibit the limitations of earth-bound souls. Shakespeare did not fall in love with
Herbert, nor with the homo in Herbert, nor with his sex and sexuality; he fell in love with his beauty, the beauty that gave him a
special eminence in Shakespeares eyes.
Although we may speak of Herberts beauty, the manner of speaking misleads us for the beauty did not belong to Herbert, it was not
one of his possessions. Rather it was that Herbert belonged toor was dependent on, or was steward of, or derived his being from
beauty. It may well be true that Euclid alone has looked on Beauty bare, but Shakespeare was no geometer. He was a poet and
playwright who created living people in his poems and plays because he understood the transcendental principles that made them what
they were. More simply, perhaps, their nature. It might be said that the geometer deals with diagrams, with bare skeletons;
Shakespeare deals with human beings, fully fleshed and fully clothed.
But, in fact, the Euclidean geometer does NOT deal with diagrams. He certainly uses diagrams, but his reasonings and conclusions are
not about the diagrams but about ideal figures that the diagrams only represent. In Platonic terms, the ideal figures are intelligible not
sensible; the diagrams are, at best, reminders. We may need them as we learn, but they are not what we are learning. Similarly, it
might be said that Herbertand all the characters in all of the playsare like the geometers diagrams, sensible embodiments, but in
Shakespeares case embodiments of the fundamental principles of the human, moral order and nature. For him, it seems, the ultimate
principle is beauty, and the ultimate human response to it is love.
Shakespeare did not know any of the Platonic writings directly, as far as we know, but he was certainly acquainted with the
understandings (and misunderstandings) of Plato as interpreted through the Neoplatonic writings and teachings of Marsilio Ficino and
others. These, often in an attenuated form, passed into the general culture, as it were, of the learned and cultivated thinkers and writers
of the Renaissance. A favorite theme was love, and the influence of the Symposium and the Phaidrus may often be detected in the
writings of both the poets and philosophers, one of whom, Edmund Spenser, certainly influenced Shakespeare.
Even if Shakespeare had a full acquaintance with what passed as Platos view of love, it would be absurd to suppose that his own
experience and understanding of love was made to conform to it. Rather, insofar as Platos view was consonant with or recognizable in
human experience, it provides, for us, a useful way of trying to understand Shakespeares relationship with William Herbert.
To begin with, Shakespeare must have seen the physical or sensible beauty of his sweet youth. There are many specific references to
some particular beauties of Herbert, mainly in the later Sonnets, and mainly visual. The beauties, whatever they were, were seen,
through the eye. This sounds like the first stage of the Symposiums divided line of love, the recognition of fair bodies. But to simply
note or observe beauties does not entail being affected by them, by which is meant here that they do not call forth any response in the
observer. They are noted. That is all.
Although there are a few hints, perhaps, in earlier Sonnets, it is in Sonnet 18 that loveunannounced, unlooked forhas arrived: But
thy eternal summer shall not fade and So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. And in Sonnet 19, it is said My love shall in my
verse ever live young which seems to carry both the meaning of he whom I love and also the love I bear him. And in Sonnet 20,
Herbert is named the master mistress of my passion, and in Sonnet 21 Shakespeare says O let me true in love but truly write . . .
It seems that Shakespeare is somewhat perplexed by what is happening to him for in Sonnet 46 he writes:
Mine eye and heart are at a mortal war,
How to divide the conquest of thy sight:
but settles the mortal war by concluding:
As thus, mine eyes due is thy outward part,
And my hearts right, thy inward love of heart.
This allocation of spheres of influence is confirmed in the next Sonnet 47:
Betwixt mine eye and heart a league is took,
And each doth good turns now unto the other;
The war between eye and heart is ended and they have reached an agreement to cooperate in keeping the young man present still with
me.
The use of eye is literal here, and stands for the organ of sight through which the beauty of Herbert is seen by Shakespeare. The use of
heart, however, is not literal (even if William Harvey was beginning his work) but obviously metaphorical. The reality of sight can be
shared by othersif Herberts hair is golden to Shakespeare, then it will be golden to any other observerbut the reality of love is not of
the same order. It is undoubtedly real to the loverit is a power in him, and affects himand it can be named to another, but there is
nothing to be pointed to that would make it a shared experience. We might see the distraught lover but it makes us neither distraught
ourselves nor a lover. The effects of the reality of love may be seen and known by others, but not the reality of the love itself. That
belongs privately to the lover and, it seems, often (but not always) to the beloved.
Needless to say, this makes any discussion of it more than difficultalmost impossible. Plato handles it by resorting to myth in the
Phaidros and to religious insight through Diotima in the Symposium. Shakespeare, however, is not trying to give a philosophical
account of love, but rather to expressor to expose or declareto his beloved the love that he has for him. It is contended above that
Shakespeare did not write his Sonnets for anyone but Herbert to read; they were never intended for publication. The love Shakespeare
had was sacred and private, belonging only to himself and his beloved, and it was not separable from the Sonnets themselves for they
are both the expressions of the love and the love itself, insofar as it can be written.
In the Symposium, Socrates defines love as the art of begetting on the beautiful and whether Shakespeare knew this or not, he and
Herbert as begetter of these insuing sonnets, seem to exemplify and confirm it.
Being together could be a joy that intensified the love, and presence and absence is a continuing theme of the Sonnets. But ultimately,
Shakespeare, his love, his poems, his beloved, their togetherness and sharing, are all one, all infused by the beauty, and as effects of the
beauty, and although we may separate them analytically and treat them in isolation, as effects, in so doing we negate or destroy part of
their being; the being of all of them is one and the same. It is a totality. The study of the Sonnets requires reverence for this fact.
Shakespeare does not evince any anxiety because of the difficulties that we feel; they did not concern him. He simply accepted the
existence of love, of his love, and was content to find its origins in beauty. It seems that this was to him a first principle behind which it
was impossible to go, or behind which there was no need to go. To that extent it was not dissimilar to a Platonic ideaa pure existence,
which is always what it is, with no admixture of anything else; it is not an image (which is not what it is), but an idea.
A Platonic idea is pure, unchanging, eternal, and so is suggestive of Shakespeares declared love, but for Plato love is a goda divine
power, a kind of madness, equally changeless and eternal, but not to be understood by the intellect. It may be recognized and accepted.
That is what Shakespeare did, what he does.
Love is not intelligible, although it clearly affects the intellect since it affects the whole being of the lover, making him more aware of
beauty (especially in his beloved) and desirous of begetting.
Taking Sonnets 1 to 126 as a given, it would be worth tracing the thoughts and feelings of Shakespeare, Sonnet by Sonnet, in order to
construct a history of the loving soul. This would entail what has often been done, namely, paraphrasing or interpreting the meaning of
the words of each Sonnet; but this is not sufficient, and the meaning of the words must be used to describe the meaning in the soul. It is
the effect of forces, no matter how slight, upon the ever-constant loving soul that is important. For example, the effect of the beloveds
physical presence or absence upon the lovers soul is highly significantthe cause of the presence or absence may be quite insignificant.
If the history of Shakespeares loving soul were written, it could be the basis for what is truly important, namely, the understanding and
appreciation of human love. But the history, if told, would gradually transmute into philosophy, by which is meant that it would recreate the love itself and the beauty that aroused it. The Sonnets were not written to instruct us or anyone else, not to impress, not to
amuse, but simply to declare to Herbert alone the love that Shakespeare bore him. By chance and good fortune, we are privileged to
share those declarations and to witness what love can beget on the beautiful, namely, more beauty.
We do not know what lasting effect Shakespeares love had upon him, but it must have had some. After he had said farewell to his
lovely boy, the love that he had remained, no longer attached to anyone in time, but immortal as he had claimed, inherent in his soul.
It was not just a memory, but an ever-living principle.
Shakespeares eye sees the outward, but, he claims, his heart sees the inward part. How are we to understand heart? It is clearly not
what Plato meant when he attributed the grasping of ideas to the intellect. If the realm of the senses was the visible world, that of the
intellect was the intelligible world, the world of ideas. To a certain extent these might be correlated respectively with the outward and
the inward parts, but although there is an Idea of Beauty in Plato, it is knowable and can be known to the intellect. There is nothing to
correspond with Shakespeares heart, which is beyond both sense and intellect, which transcends them, just as in Plato the idea of the
Good transcends both being and knowing.
The Sonnets cannot be understood unless we can grasp the meaning of heart. And yet the Sonnets themselves are the greatest help in
our attempts at grasping it. Thus they are simultaneously both the object of our search and the means or way of searching. It is this
circularity that guarantees their enduring value: they are both the evidence and what is evidenced.
Filed Under: Shakespeare
Return to top of page
2011 instituteofphilosophy.org Site by Spring River Marketing Admin

Bremer Shakespeare

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bremer Shakespeare

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Home

Search this w ebsite

Folklore, Dance & Song

Sonnet 126: Shakespeares Farewell to his lovely Boy

From fairest creatures we desire increase

And take thou my oblation, poor but free,

Return to top of page

2011 instituteofphilosophy.org Site by Spring River Marketing Admin

Potrebbero piacerti anche