William Shakespeare’s – Sonnet 111. (Analysis)
‘Numbers’ are of great significance in regard to this particular sonnet. Our great author firmly believed all princes were divinely ordained in Heaven – that they were Gods on earth. Therefore I will show you why the word ‘one’ was the most important word in his vocabulary, while it is not too difficult to see that three ‘ones’ would be of an even greater significance.
In Shake-speare’s highly successful long narrative poem “Venus and Adonis” he casts himself in the guise of ‘Adonis’ and ‘Queen Elizabeth I’ in the guise of ‘Venus’ while at the climax of the poem their offspring ‘Henry Wriothesley’ arrives on earth (literally) through miraculous conception in the guise of a fritillary flower.
In the very first line of (S.111) we find three individuals (in fact three princes) whom I like to refer to as ‘The Tudor Trinity’. In respective order they are ‘our author’, ‘Henry Wriothesley’ and ‘Queen Elizabeth I’ they are of course the same three princes alluded to by the sonnet number ‘one’ ‘one’ ‘one’.
1. “O, For my sake do you with fortune chide”.
The word ‘fortune’ is a further allusion to Queen Elizabeth – who contrary to popular myth was in fact ‘Henry Wriothesley’s’ mother and it is her that he (for our author’s sake) is chiding, as she had failed to make proper provision for his father – who beset by penury demeaningly agreed in the year 1586 to the brand (Shake-speare) being attached to the product of his genius.
(5) “Thence comes it that my name receives a brand”.
Of all words; the word ‘one’ was the most important to our polyglot author who as we have seen liked to cast himself in the guise of Venus’ lover Adonis (Adon) for short – meaning ‘Lord’ in Hebrew – a language he was familiar with which he had been taught as a child – by that most eminent scholar and lecturer Sir Thomas Smith.
The Hebrew word for God is ‘one’.
“The Lord will be king over all the land, In that day the Lord will be one and his name is one.” (Zechariah 14:9)
As I have said the word ‘one’ was not only the most important word to our author but was sacred to him, I shall therefor be referring in future to ‘three ones’ as ‘Sacred 3’, while the word ‘sun’ or ‘suns’ (S.33) or the words ‘rose’ or ‘roses’ (S.54) both found three times in their respective sonnets also come into this category, as does the word “him” found in the concluding three lines of (S.134) while all these words are capitalised in the ‘quarto’ editions.
Sympathetic to this knowledge is the fact that Henry Wriothesley’s motto was ‘One for all, all for one’, a fact causing our author to play remorselessly upon the words ‘one’ & ‘all’ – a good number of these being found throughout his sonnet sequence of which (S.8) also has a representation of ‘Sacred 3’.
(11) Resembling sire and child and happy mother
(12) Who all in one, one pleasing note do sing,
(13) Whose speechless song, being many, seeming one,
(14) Sings this to thee: ‘Thou single wilt prove none.’ (S.8)
In the eleventh line of this sonnet the word ‘happy’ as in “happy mother” denotes royalty, as we note in the fourteenth stanza of ‘Love’s Martyr’ written by our author using the pseudonym ‘Robert Chester’ that a King sits in a “happie chaire”. While further credence is given to this belief by the usurper Bolingbroke in ‘Richard II’ who finds himself in accord with this thought:
“You have mislead a prince, a royal King
A happy gentleman in blood and lineaments.” King Richard II. 3, i, 9
The concluding line of (S.8) in fact proved prophetic, because although Elizabeth could have nominated Wriothesley to succeed her – she did not.
In my work “With the Breath thou Giv’st and Tak’st” I give evidence that Elizabeth bought five princes into this world (all males) of which ‘Henry Wriothesley’ was the last. Wriothesley of course was convicted of crimes against the state and if it wasn’t for his father having successfully pleaded for his life, he possibly would have been executed as his brother-in-arms Robert Devereux had been, although to be completely and absolutely correct that should read ‘half-brother-in-arms’, because Henry Wriothesley, Robert Devereux and our author were all princes and half-brothers to ‘one’ another – as equally they were the three leading lights of the ‘Essex Faction’.
“Quinte-essentially”(poetically put) in ‘Love’s Martyr’ our author considered himself guardian-soul of these five princes specially his great love Wriothesley. Sonnet 136 illustrates just how protective our author was of him – as we see the word ‘Will’ (only three of these capitalised) form a protective triangular barrier – to an inner representation of ‘Sacred 3’ where we find three ones also in the form of a triangle, while at the centre of this triangle we find a grief that lays at the centre of our author’s heart – identified in the words:
“Among a number one is reckon’d none”. (Line 8)
What this means is that ‘amongst a number of princes ‘one’ (Wriothesley) is not regarded as our author believes befitting of his station in life (particularly in respect of the succession) in his own words he is “reckon’d none”.
While in the next line we come to a much more sensitive issue because Henry Wriothesley was the product of an incestuous love affair between “Venus and Adonis” which is why it was necessary he entered this world surreptitiously as a flower (a fritillary) following Adonis’ death – described by our author like this:
And in the blood that on the ground lay spilled,
A purple flower sprung up check’red with white. Venus & Adonis.
Our author specifically uses the word “check’red” because ‘red & white’ are Tudor colours – while the purple-fritillary-flower denotes Wriothesley’s royalty.
In Elizabethan England amongst the courtier class it was inevitable they would learn that Queen Elizabeth and Edward de Vere were lovers and most probably also learn that ‘Henry Wriothesley’ was a product of this love – a consequence described in (S.56) as a “return of love”. What of course they must never – ever learn – was that in the month of July 1548 Edward de Vere became ‘The first’ born of Elizabeth’s five children, which is why he says in line nine of (S.136).
“Then in the number let me pass untold”.
The meaning here is that in this “store” or “number” of princes attributable to her majesty, for the sake of her reputation – he was willing to forego the dubious honour of being proclaimed so to all and sundry.
While in my work “With the Breath thou Giv’st and Tak’st” I reveal the monumental significance of our author revealing this royalty in the last two lines of (S.25).
Then happy I, that love and am beloved
Where I may not remove nor be removed.
While the following quotations – show further improvisations by our author in respect of Henry Wriothesley’s motto “One for all, all for one”.
Thou art the grave where buried love doth live,
Hung with the trophies of my lovers gone,
Who all their parts of me to thee did give:
That due of many now is thine alone,
Their images I loved and view in thee,
And thou, all they, has all the all of me. (S.31)
Any of these all or all or more,
Entitled in thy parts do crowned sit. (S.37)
Thus do I pine and surfeit day by day,
Or gluttoning on all or all away. (S.75)
Since all alike my songs and praises be,
To one of one, still such and ever so. (S.105)
Equally interesting is the fact that the word ‘every’ is an allusion to our author, so when we find the words ‘every’ and ‘one’ merged together – these are bonding words that represent father and son, consequently we find (S.53) of more serious interest, in which a father addresses a son who has been convicted of treason and incarcerated in a dark and shadowy tower.
What is your substance, whereof are you made,
That millions of strange shadows on you tend?
Since every one hath, every one, ‘one’ shade,
And you but ‘one’ can ‘every’ shadow lend,
Describe Adonis, and the counterfeit
Is poorly imitated after you.
Looking closely at Shake-speare’s famous metaphysical poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle” we find within it a representation of ‘Sacred 3’ for the word ‘one’ appears three times only within the poem, again an allusion to Henry Wriothesey 3rd Earl of Southampton, who in the host work (Love’s Martyr) is repeatedly referenced by this word ‘one’, or alternatively by the words ‘rare’ or ‘Raritie’ because thankfully – incestuously begotten children – are ‘rare’.
“Beauty, Truth and Raritie”.
These words from “The Phoenix and the Turtle” represent ‘The Tudor Trinity’ who individually are Queen Elizabeth I ‘Beauty’, our author ‘Truth’ (an allusion to his personnel motto) and Henry Wriothesley their ‘Rare’ flower. Now for proof that Wriothesley was Elizabeth’s issue; if we look at the ‘quarto’ of (S.130) which we must always do when trying to understand our author’s true meaning we find “roses damasked red & white” these would of course be ‘Tudor Roses’ while three lines further on because Elizabeth had a predilection for boiled-sweets her teeth had rotted and in later life she suffered from halitosis – a condition our author expressed this way:
“Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.” (S.130)
In this sonnet the last word in the penultimate line is ‘rare’ followed in the last line by the word ‘beli’d’ spelled with an apostrophe, and while modern editors would have us believe this word is ‘belied’ of course it isn’t, for it truly represents the word ‘belly’d’ – it’s ancient meaning being ‘womb’.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as ‘rare’
As any she ‘beli’d’ with false compare. (S.130)
A further example of a sonnet number portraying content is (S.20) a portrait of ‘Henry Wriothesley’ his true birthday being the 20th May 1574 (not to be confused with his official birthday 6th October 1573) while I must impress upon you further (a fact already stressed) that ‘Henry Wriothesley’ was not only our author’s “deare friend” (line 13) but more importantly his son, a fact confirmed in (S.33) line 9 with our author’s use of the words “my Sun one” i.e. (my Godly Son) while we also discover in (S.20) how Wriothesley made his entrance into this mortal realm.
And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting.
Elizabeth fell a-doting when the androgynous Wriothesley was “first created” our author being particularly careful not to use the word ‘born’ – Wriothesley was “created” not born.
Biologically speaking our ‘Tudor Trinity’ could be described as a ‘very intimate’ family, a converse consequence being that they often led disparate lives. In the final line of (S.105) when our author says:
“Which three till now never kept seat in one”.
The ‘seat’ he refers to is a ‘royal seat’, what we are being told is that as a royal family these ‘three’ never shared the throne together.
The first line of (S.111).
“O For my sake do you with fortune chide”.
References all three members of this royal family, here our author is seen empathising with ‘Henry Wriothesley’ who chides his mother ‘The Virgin Queen’. This is explicable because both the words “fortune” and “nature” used ubiquitously by our author are here used as allusions to Elizabeth. While a consequence of our author’s genius meant he could sometimes be aloof, so when using the word ‘nature’ in the sixth line his aristocratic attitude surfaces, because this particular word also alludes to his royal D.N.A.
In the second line he is found remonstrating with Elizabeth (his employer) for she is “the guilty goddess” he accuses of not better providing for his life, while he also sees her as responsible for his “harmful deeds” because a belittling consequence of her inconsiderate behaviour, was his work was not (to his innermost desires) produced exclusively for the court, but through fiscal requirement was sold via agents and ultimately performed on the ‘public’ stage (an eventuality utterly demeaning to our noble author).
Though many people would have us believe these “harmful deeds” related to being ‘a player on the stage’ the indelible truth is that our great author’s hands were stained with ink – just like the “Dyers hand” for his “strong infection” his vocation, his genius, was only truly revealed when he put pen to paper.
We have seen how the word ‘nature’ has a double meaning – as does the word ‘wi-sh’ a natural abbreviation for the name William Shakespeare, whose ‘wi-sh’ (line 8) was to revert to a time before he was obliged (through financial necessity) to use a pseudonym.
What he wished – was to return to his former state – to a time before his name received a brand, a brand we find encrypted within (S.111) a numerical brand that I shall shortly reveal to you.
Meanwhile we should be sympathetic as he exclaims he drinks:
“Potions of Eysell gainst my strong infection”
He cleverly medicates himself by pitting ‘potions’ against ‘love’ drinking a bitter substance to cure his “strong-infection” (his love of literature and writing) because ‘Eisel’ is a derivation of alcohol an antidote to ink!
In “The Tempest” as Prospero watches Miranda & Ferdinand gathering wood the following words are his observations about the loved-up young prince:
“Poor worm, thou art infected”.
Poor Ferdinand had been infected with ‘love’, while the word ‘worm’ is an allusion to our author – who was obsessional about worms, because worms appear in thirty or more of his works, so when not musing:
“Gods stand up for bastards” (King Lear)
(He was of course a bastard himself) he was possibly musing ‘Gods stand up for worms’ as he was also a worm (at least a French worm) a word that relates to his inherited Norman name, while it is worth remembering that in Shake-speare’s version – Cleopatra dies from the bite of a ‘worm’ not a snake.
An Imperative in understanding the true meaning of our author’s works is we must always reference the ‘quarto’ original (above) where possible because a consequence of ‘Chinese whispers’ is inevitably vital original details will be omitted in translation.
When referring to one-self in written English instead of using a lower-case ‘i’ we always use an upper-case capital ‘I’, letters (in this sonnet) that become irrelevant in respect of what I am about to share with you. In fact they are eclipsed by four capital ‘T’s found in a near vertical row, with which the second, third, fourth and fifth lines begin. These four ‘T’s represent the number ‘40’ which can also be represented like this (4T) consequently it is ‘40’ (in line five) whose “name receives a brand”.
Let me explain: In observing the monument to William Shake-speare in Westminster Abbey we find quite incredibly that this sculpted marble effigy consecrated in the year ‘1740’ shows us our great author pointing to a tablet bearing an inscription taken from “The Tempest”.
In this inscription we again find four ‘T’s in a vertical row with the first line of script having been deliberately contracted to 17 letters from the original which was composed of twenty letters – when it appeared like this:
“The cloud-capped towers”. (20 letters)
This is how it appears on Shake-speare’s tomb (monochrome) in the Abbey of Westminster:
The cloud cap’d tow’rs, (17 letters)
The gorgeous palaces,
The solemn Temples,
The great globe itself.
4T’s = Edward de Vere’s code (40) which when preceded with the seventeen letters of the words “The cloud cap’d tow’rs” can jointly be seen as ‘1740’.
Therefore when our author says in line five:
“Thence comes it that my name receives a brand”.
The brand he is referring to is ‘William Shake-speare’ – a brand also identifiable by the numbers ‘1740’.
Looking more closely at (S.111) I shall now proceed to show you how the name Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford is represented within it.
The sonnet begins with a capital ‘O’ for ‘Oxford’, there are then only three further words beginning with capitals (within the interior of the sonnet) the second proper word is the word “For” later followed by the words “Eysell” & “Dyers”. The capital ‘E’ stands for ‘Edward’ and the capital ‘D’ stands for “De Vere” but more pertinently – if we count all the capitals together they amount to ‘17’. This figure is arrived at by adding the fourteen capital letters with which each line begins together with the capital ‘F’ (the second letter in the sonnet) plus the capital ‘E’ for ‘Edward’ and the capital ‘D’ for ‘De Vere’. To these ‘17’ we then add the ‘40’ we arrived at earlier when we accumulated together the 4 ‘T’s with which lines two, three, four and five begin, therefore arriving at the figure ‘1740’.
In the beginning – of this pitiful slow unveiling of our true author’s identity the year ‘1740’ was very significant and it was no accident that this was the year William Shake-speare’s monument was consecrated in Westminster Abbey, because amongst his supporters in the year ‘1740’ his star still shone brightly and it was these ‘arch-friends’ that arranged his commemoration specifically to be unveiled in that particular year. Naturally; there must have been a reason for this inertia, as we wonder why – this truth has been hidden from the general public for so long?
Well I will tell you.
Our great author was “The first” son of Queen Elizabeth 1st a statement I can back up with poetic-proof, because in the year 1601 he wrote and with a triangulated signature signed a poem entitled “The first”, its meaning – that in the year of our Lord 1548 he was the first born son of the single-natured, doubled-named ‘Virgin Queen’.
So if ‘ever’ there was a ‘State-Secret’ to be kept secret – that was it!
We can justifiably say the poem “The first” was written by our great author because in the last three lines – the word ‘one’ appears three times – as an expression of ‘Sacred 3’, just as there is a representation of ‘Sacred 3’ in his poem “The Phoenix and the Turtle”.
While sandwiched between these two poems in ‘Love’s Martyr’ is a further bright rendition by our bard – entitled “The burning” where we find in the penultimate line the word ‘rare’ rendered twice, followed in the final line by the word ‘one’, thus we have a further rendition of ‘Sacred 3’.
Here are the last three lines of his poem “The first” which begins by alluding to an uncertain light that began to engulf the Tudor dynasty at the end of Elizabeth’s reign.
But one sick Phoebe, fever-shaking light:
The heart, one string: So, thus in single turns,
The world one Phoenix, till another burns. Ignoto.
Edward de Vere never knew his father, nor did his father ever know of him, but of his mother it could be said he knew-her far too well.
Now by way of adding some substance to this statement – I quote ‘Hamlet’ arguably the most autobiographical of all fictions:
“Get thee to a nunnery! Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest, but yet I could accuse me of ‘such things’ that it were better my mother had not borne me”.
In this dialogue about breeding it is interesting “such things” are immediately followed by Hamlet’s thoughts of his mother, with whom at her instigation our author had an incestuous relationship, which on the 20th May 1574 produced a faire and ‘rare’ infant – known to the world as ‘Henry Wriothesley’ who as a teenager was the spitting-image both of his mother and his grandmother.
If this analysis of sonnet 111 has stimulated your interest? My forthcoming work entitled “With the Breath thou Giv’st and Tak’st” written in appreciation of William Shake-speare’s great metaphysical masterpiece “The Phoenix and the Turtle” will I’m sure fly straight to your hearts.
Philip Cooper fecit: © 22 February 2021.
To understand my true meaning it may be sagacious reading this content in conjunction with (S.20).