The Monument: "Shake-Speares Sonnets" by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford [Hardcover]

Hank Whittemore (Author), Alex McNeil (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: April 12, 2005

The Monument presents a new discovery about the form and content of "Shake-Speares Sonnets" of 1609. The book offers a new edition of the 154 verses to demonstrate that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford constructed a "monument" to preserve "the living record" of Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton as the rightful successor by blood to Queen Elizabeth I of England. In the exact center of the elegant monument is a 100-sonnet diary from the Essex Rebellion of 1601 to the Queen's death and funeral in 1603, when the Tudor dynasty ended. This breakthrough edition shows why Oxford was forced to sacrifice his own identity to save the life of Southampton, his unacknowledged royal son, and secure the promise of his release from the Tower of London with a royal pardon. Here is the "smoking gun" of the Shakespeare authorship mystery, preserved in the Sonnets of Shakespeare.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"'The Monument' is monumental is so many ways ... Whittemore's accomplishment is tremendous. He has solved what has been an enigma since the first Shakespearean speculator put pen to paper. Whittemore has allowed readers to see the sonnet cycle as an understandable and believable whole." --Janet Hamilton, M.A., MyShelf.Com

"Ultimately, Whittemore's reading of the 'story' told by the Sonnets is very persuasive. 'The Monument' does not require acceptance of more 'if' conjectures than it answers longstanding 'why' questions." --Michael Delahoyde, Washington State University, The Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature

"I have come to believe that the Whittemore solution to the Sonnets is absolutely correct." --William Boyle, editor, "Shakespeare Matters," Summer 2004

About the Author

Hank Whittemore, also known as L. H. Whittemore, is the author of 10 previously published books. The more recent titles include "CNN: The Inside Story" (Little, Brown); "So That Others May Live" (Bantam); and "Your Future Self" (Thames & Hudson). Hank is a former professional actor who appeared on stage with Helen Hayes and Art Carney; his career includes the writing of many TV documentaries -- "The Body Human" (CBS); "The American Sportsman" (ABC); NOVA; etc. -- and of some 100 articles for PARADE, the Sunday supplement. He lives in Nyack, New York, with his wife Gloria Janata-Whittemore and their son Jake. Hank is the proud father of Eva, Lorna, Ben and Maggie, as well, as Jake; and the proud grandfather of Nicole and Tom.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 918 pages
• Publisher: Meadow Geese Press (April 12, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0966556453
• ISBN-13: 978-0966556452
• Product Dimensions: 11.1 x 8.5 x 2.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 5.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (22 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #969,057 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

57 of 66 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Most important work on Shakespeare in a century, August 4, 2005

By 

Peter Rush (Leesburg, VA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Monument: "Shake-Speares Sonnets" by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (Hardcover)

It is gratifying to read so many other reviews that agree on the importance of Hank Whittemore's latest book, The Monument, on Shakespeare's Sonnets. What Whittemore has accomplished is nothing short of breath-taking. He has achieved in the literary realm what Thomas Kuhn so excellently described for science 40 years ago: a paradigm shift, where it takes a totally fresh view, unemcumbered by the assumptions and prejudices of a given field of inquiry, to solve what are otherwise perceived in the profession to be unsolvable questions. Einstein's Special Relativity Theory, coincidentally exactly 100 years ago, is the best example of such a paradigm shift, where the only solution to the conundrums plaguing physics was Einstein's assertion that time itself was not constant, and neither was mass.

The difference in the case of Whittemore's work is that despite massive evidence that Shakespeare's Sonnets remain to this day a virtually totally impenetrable enigma, very few mainstream scholars even appear to recognize this fact. I have recently read the work of the only four scholars, so far as I am aware, in the last 50 years who have published either a paraphrase of, or extended comments on, ALL 154 sonnets. They are to be commended for recognizing the importance of treating the entire sonnet sequence as a whole, but in each case, in my view, they are a miserable flop at explaining the meaning of the sonnets.

What Whittemore recognized is first, that the sonnets are ONE unified, coherent, internally consistent, document. Whatever is said in one sonnet MUST relate to all the other sonnets. So long as there are (apparent) contradictions between one's interpretations of different sonnets, so long is that interpretation fatally flawed. Second, he not only agreed with many scholars that Sonnet 106 is about the death of the Queen, the peaceful accession of James, and the release of Southampton from the Tower of London, but he asked the next logical question that, quite surprisingly, no other scholar has even seemed to ask: if 106 is about Southampton's release, then mustn't there be a sonnet about Southampton's arrest and initial incarceration, and once found, wouldn't that suggest that all intervening sonnets might be a CHRONICLE of that incarceration?

Whittemore found that sonnet in #27, where the tone changes totally abruptly from carefree to careworn and hyper-stressed. He masterfully shows how the 80 sonnets from 27 to 106 line up against the history of Southampton's incarceration, tracing references to the Sessions where he and Essex were condemned to death (with Oxford/Shakespeare sitting in trial and forced to vote for execution), the execution of Essex, and the attempts of the author, Oxford, to broker a deal to save Southampton's life. In passing, Whittemore has uncovered the first and only explanation, and it is convincing, of how Southampton's life came to be spared, when he was supposed to be executed, and no extant document explains why he wasn't. His sentence was changed to "misprision" (of treason), not a capital offense--as Oxford recorded in Sonnet 87. And much, much more that Whittemore has discovered that shows the sonnets to be Chronicle, and a Monument to Southampton.

Finally, Whittemore figured out why the sonnets are so hard to read and understand: they are written on two entirely distinct and independent levels. The surface level, where it appears that the author is writing love poetry to another man, where various scholars trace the vagaries of a troubled love triangle, is just that--the cover story, the version intended to fool the censors, the "authority" that has "tongue-tied" the author. But the real story is Aesopian--an underlying story written essentially in a code known only to the core group "in the know." Thus, words like "love," "time," "beauty," "one," "true," which recur dozens of times each, have a consistent meaning in the underlying version that tells a very clear, consistent story.

Several sonnets are explicit: the author claims that the sonnets will be a monument to Southampton that will outlive all monuments of stone, and last till the Second Coming. How could the putative author, a commoner from Stratford, writing to his patron (the standard version of the story) with whom he has become romantically involved, possibly think that the torrid story of that relationship was the most important story in world history? Yet, the sonnets are clear: the author DOES think that whatever is really being told in these sonnets IS the most important story in at least modern history. You will need to read this book to find out why, to read the proof that the author HAD to be the Earl of Oxford, and to find the solution to dozens of other major conundrums and unanswered questions posed by the sonnets that traditional scholarship has not only not solved, in most cases not even posed as a question to be solved.

Shakespeare lovers, history lovers, mystery lovers, and iconoclasts of all persuasions, MUST read this book. It is positively spellbinding, as the truth becomes apparent the way that invisible ink suddernly becomes visible upon proper treatment. It will undoubtedly take a while, years, possibly decades, for Whittemore's interpretation to prevail and sweep away the present orthodoxy--just as many scientific revolutions took decades to become widely accepted--but that day will come, and those who read this book now will be the vanguard of that paradigm shift.

22 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Making Sense of the Sonnets, January 11, 2007

By 

Dr. John R. Fox (Sanibel FL USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Monument: "Shake-Speares Sonnets" by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (Hardcover)

While I always loved the language of Shakespeare's Sonnets, I had more or less given up on them. They were obviously deeply autobiogrqaphical, but to what and to whom did they they refer? Were they heterosexual love poems or, as commentators reluctantly came to assume, homosexual tracts directed to the Earl of Southampton who had been the dedicatee of the two long poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece? But how did the latter jibe with the failure of anyone to come up with a connection between the man from Stratford and the Earl? And what sense did it make when the first thirty or so sonnets where addressed to a young man urging him to marry and reproduce himself? And what about the "rival poet" and the "dark lady" who appear in the later sonnets? Many commentators have given up in despair and the orthodoxy became that the autobiography was irrelevant to the poems which had to be read things in themselves without outside reference. So I gave up. Until, that is, I looked into Hank Whittemore's "The Monument."

Whittemore works from the assumption that "Shake-speare" was a pseudonym for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. The reasonihg behind this has moved from "crank" status to a new kind of orthodoxy, and indeed is all that makes sense of the disrepancy between the life of the man from Stratford and the poems and plays. We can't look at all the evidence and argument here, but we can look at how this assumption helps to explain the content of the sonnets. Whittemore sees them as a chronological series directed by Oxford to Southampton, who was his son by Elizabeth I, secretly put out for fosterage with the Southampton family. This is the famous "Prince Tudor" hypothesis, and before readers throw up their hands they should look carefully at the evidence. I would have dismissed it as improbable except for the fact it does indeed make great sense of the sonnets. The first set about the failure of the young man to marry for example: directed by the Stratford man to Southampton they make little sense and are positively impertinent, but seen as directed by a father to the son he could not acknowledge, but whom he passionately wanted to perpetuate the Tudor dynasty and so ensure his own position as potential King (Henry IX) they fall into place. Add to this that the proposed bride was Oxford's daughter Anne (whom he did not believe was his biological child) and the matter becomes alarmingly obvious. The one hundred central sonnets that follow this series Whittemore shows to be a day by day chronicle of the days spent in prison (the Tower)by Southampton under sentence of death from Elizabeth for his part in Essex's rebellion - one of the jurors in the trial being Oxford himself.
The "dark lady" series refers to Elizabeth herself, and the "rival poet" is of course the adopted persona "Shakespeare" behind which Oxford was forced to hide.

Whittemore takes each sonnet and goes through it line by line showing the code or special language that Oxford used and which explains so much of the persistent imagery of the poems. He examines and cross-references the usages to all the "Shakespeare" works, and includes a detailed chronological history of the historical events that parallel the action of the sonnets, ending with the death of Elizabeth and the dramatic pardoning of Southampton by James I when he ascended to the throne of England. At this point Oxford, as part of the deal with Robert Cecil and James had to completely abandon any ambitions for his son ("I must not evermore acknowledge thee...") and leave the Sonnets as the only "Monument" to the truth.

This is a huge book and a huge enterprise. A shorter version evidently exists that leaves out the details and references, but the reader who is willing to be patient will, as I did, get thoroughly enthralled with the details of the evidence. As poem after poem emerges making complete sense in the context of its writing vis-avis the tormented life of the young Earl of Southampton and the agony of the father who could not acknowledge him but loved him with a moving and desperate devotion, and a picture of great drama and passion emerges. Given the unorthodox theory that he is supporting, Whittemore needs to go to these extraordinary lengths to be convincing. He will be challenged of course, and rightly so. Sometimes he might be overanalyzing and putting too much faith in the sonsistency of the "code." "Beauty" might always refer to Elizabeth, but sometimes, as Freud said, a cigar is just a cigar. Even so, any critic is going to have to show in the same massive detail why he is wrong. This is not a work that can be dismissed as the Baconian codes and cyphers were (rightly) dismissed. When, as in sonnets 30 to 35 for example, the exact reference to the trial of Southampton and Oxford's agonizing part in it become obvious, I have a vast sense of relief, of insight. At last it makes sense. The reader does not need to look at every last note to each poem. Once you get the idea it is enought to read the poem, read the Wittemore' "translation" and get the historical (day by day) context. The notes are there for further referrence and for the scholars. This is an immense work of scholarship, of a very rare kind, one that serves the reader as a source of revelation, and the scholar as a mine of information and dispute. You may not buy it all - and you will have to work at understanding the basic premiss and clear the mind of the cant associated with standard "Shakespeare" biographies, but for all those who like me have been frustrated by a failure to make sense of the most profound autobiographical sequence in any literature, this is a powerful breath of fresh air. If the poems were "Shake-speare's" Monument, then this magnificent book is Hank Whittemore's own Monument and will itself father many distinguished offspring as its possibilities are realized.

29 of 38 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Masterful, "Must-Read" Book!, July 3, 2006

By 

Gary L. Livacari, D.D.S. (Park Ridge, Illinois) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Monument: "Shake-Speares Sonnets" by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (Hardcover)

The Monument, by Hank Whittemore

I've been studying the Shakespeare-Oxford authorship question for close to 20 years. During this time, I had long ago become convinced that the real author of the Shakespearean canon was Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, writing under the pseudonym "William Shake-speare" and most definitely was not Will Shaksper, the man from Stratford who most everyone assumes to be the author.

Now, after reading Hank Whittemore's masterful exposition of the sonnets, The Monument, the authorship debate is unquestionably settled for all time. Whittemore's recognition of the author as Edward deVere is, to my mind, beyond dispute. Moreover, he has also identified the two other protagonists of the sonnets: the "Fair Youth" as Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton; and the "Dark Lady" as Queen Elizabeth.

Many other Shakespearean researchers have posited these identifications, so this in itself is not necessarily new information. Whittemore's original and lasting contribution, however, is that he is the first to uncover the correct historical and political context in which the sonnets were written. The main themes of this context include:

-The royal "love triangle," in which Southampton is the unrecognized son of Oxford and Elizabeth, and, as such, the legitimate Tudor heir to the throne.

-The deeply moving, heartfelt "unconditional love" that Oxford continuously expresses throughout the sonnets for the son he cannot recognize and the king who will never see his throne.

-The rejected "marriage proposal" between Southampton and Elizabeth Vere that dominates the "Fair Youth" sequence, which, if had been accepted, could have secured Southampton's rightful path to the throne.

-Oxford's haunting, unceasing lamentations over the queen's rejection of Southampton as their son.

-The here-to-fore overlooked political ramifications of Southampton's role in the disasterous Essex Rebellion of 1601, and how its tragic consequences echoed throughout the sonnets.

-The recognition of the "ransom" Oxford paid to save Southampton's life and secure his subsequent release from the Tower after his conviction for treason. This "ransom" included the rejection of Oxford's identity as the father of Southampton, and, most significantly, the perpetual concealment of Oxford's identity as "William Shake-speare." Whittemore is the first researcher to discern this "ransom" through his reading of Sonnet 120: "Your trespass now becomes a fee, Mine ransoms yours, and yours must ransom me." With this one discovery, he may very well have unraveled the entire Shakespeare-authorship mystery.

Once these and a few other themes are accepted and understood, the sonnets, though written for political reasons in a highly elliptical, metaphorical language with a hidden double meaning, are rather easy to decipher. They read as the diary of a very real man expressing his very real anguish in the face of the almost incomprehensible cruelities of fate that have befallen him and his son. With this proper historical context in place, Whittemore is able to precisely identify the exact date on which many of them were written.

In addition, part of Hank Whittemore's success in The Monument comes from his recognition of the need to define a few previously perplexing words (such as "trepass," "fault," and "misprision") within the context of the times they were written. In other words, he discovered what these words meant to the author, Edward deVere, and his Elizabeathan contemporaries, as opposed to what they mean in the 21st century. Using this mechanism, some of the most confusing sonnets easily reveal their meaning. Whittemore is also the first Shakespearean reseacher to uncover the hidden structure of the sonnets, which consists of a 100 sonnet "monument" in the middle of the composition, surrounded by beginning and ending pyramids of 26 sonnets each.

Although this is a wonderful book and I would highly recommend it to all, those who are new to the authorship question may find some of the assumptions and conclusions hard to understand. For them I may recommend starting out with one of the many fine introductory books to familiarize his or herself with the subject. But for Shakespeare enthusiasts of all stripes, including convinced Oxfordians and all others who are interested in the authorship question, the book is nothing short of a treasure. For me, it represents the grand culmination of almost 20 years of investigative study on this topic. What a thrill it is to finally make sense of the elusive "Shake-speare's Sonnets." For this we are eternally grateful to Hank Whittemore. I am hopeful that with time he will receive the recognition due him for his truly "monumental" discoveries.