Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Hank Whittemore's The Monument.


"The greatest mistake, I felt, was viewing these intensely autobiographical poems only or primarily as literature, when they are meant to be perceived as entries of a diary recording real events in real time. My hypothesis included the Sonnets not only as autobiographical, but also, within each series, as arranged by the poet in chronological order. To me it was clear the verses are nonfiction dressed as fiction, adding up to a genuine historical document; and beyond that, in my view, this unique sequence of poems must have been Shakespeare's magnum opus in terms of what he wanted us to know about his life...."

---Hank Whittemore, The Monument, Introduction, p. xix.

What are we to make of a substantial volume of what clearly promises to be literary criticism, which claims to treat its subject matter as more than just literature? If the literature in question were anything less than the greatest collection of poetry in the English language, we might be inclined to bridle at the imposition.

But in the case of SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS, the critic, Mr. Whittemore, tantalizes us with a key which he says will unlock its secrets, and which moreover, promises to delineate an underlying structure for the entire work---a work which has befuddled the literary world from the days of its first appearance until the present. How can any serious student of Shakespeare despise the offer?

If Whittemore can live up to his claim, that Game would certainly be worth the Candle. Of course, it is true that most games are valuable only for the fact that they can be played, and so, we think, with this one. One aspect of Whittemore's theory is so unorthodox, and even outrageous, that, even if it should convince the reader absolutely, we doubt if it could be proven to the satisfaction of the average disinterested person. Yet, even without accepting the theory whole and complete, we must agree that Whittemore has successfully uncovered a fundamental structure and raison d'etre for the Sonnets collection which sheds more light upon this singular body of poetry than anyone ---after more than three centuries of analysis--- has ever expected to see.

For the fair-minded reader who is intent on an objective appraisal of Whittemore's new book, we must admit to being prejudiced in favor of Whittemore since first we heard his interpretation expounded before a meeting of the fledgling Shakespeare Fellowship at Harvard's Radcliffe Hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the year 2000. A second hearing of the theory a year or so later in the same venue only served to add to our interest. We shall not try to prognosticate, but we are fully convinced that Whittemore's The Monument represents a `Copernican revolution' in Shakespeare studies. Going forward in time, that star-spangled literary universe can be expected to turn on an entirely new axis, co-existing with traditional Shakespeare studies for a little while, but ultimately destined to replace them with an entirely new paradigm.

Will this new paradigm be absolute and authoritative in every particular? No more so than the Copernican paradigm can be considered absolute and authoritative in the face of the Einstein's theory of relativity. But the level of discussion has been raised to a higher level, simply because Whittemore has discovered a truth about the Sonnets which, once seen, can never be ignored.

In our humble opinion, the truth uncovered by Whittemore has the capacity to determine the course of progressive Shakespeare studies for the next hundred years. Hopefully, these progressive studies will not be made in the interest of proving that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, is the `real Shakespeare.' Rather, those who participate in this journey will simply assume that Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare canon is already assured, so that there is no further need to discuss it.

The debate between the Copernican universe and the Aristotelian universe ---both considered 'Philosophies' at the time- preoccupied the learned world for at least two hundred years, but eventually the entire discussion became unfashionable. So we hope that the already-tiresome authorship question is now destined to become increasingly irrelevant. Those who prefer to believe that William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the plays and poetry attributed to "Shakespeare" will inevitably have less and less to talk about as time goes on. The myths associated with this misidentification have served their purpose, but in the end, it is the true story which makes for more worthwhile reading.

Whittemore did not create The Monument in a vacuum. He stands on the shoulders of more than 80 years of increasingly sophisticated Oxfordian commentary. But ultimately, The Monument charts a course to a previously undiscovered country which, once found, can never be considered "undiscovered" again.

Copernicus, himself, could have wished for no more.

To read Hank Whittemore's The Monument, as published by Steve Aucella's Meadow Geese Press in its 926 pages, is to be present for the making of history. This volume is necessary reading for anyone who is interested in English literature, never mind in the identity of the true author of the Shakespeare poems and plays whom Whittemore correctly assumes to be Edward de Vere.

Carl Caruso

Whittemore's claim begins with a particular interpretation of the first two lines of the first sonnet: "From fairest creatures we desire increase, That thereby beauty's Rose might never die." According to Whittemore, "Rose" (capitalized and italicized in the original, and appearing capitalized 11 more times in the 154 sonnets) means "Tudor Rose Dynasty" of which Queen Elizabeth was the last monarch.

If Whittemore is correct, then the Earl of Southampton (to whom the first 126 sonnets are apparently written) was the actual last Tudor who never became King. The sonnets are thus a tribute to Southampton and his royal claim and the first two lines are a plea to the young Earl to beget an heir so that the Tudor Rose dynasty can continue.

Whittemore's reading of the sonnets allows him to present a unified view of the mysterious verses. In my opinion, his analysis holds together quite well, providing the sonnets with internal consistency and transparently relating them to historical events. In some cases, the sonnets actually explain historical events that were previously mysterious (Southampton was convicted of high treason after the failed Essex Rebellion of 1601 but his life was spared while his co-conspirators, including the Earl of Essex, were executed).

Whittemore's interpretation is much more compelling than the usual "we don't know what the sonnets mean" peddled in standard texts. In fact, Whittemore brings the sonnets to life, hugely increasing their power and interest and pathos.

Of course, Whittemore's interpretation rules out the commoner William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author. Whittemore assumes from the outset what Mark Twain and many others have suspected: "Shakespeare" is a pseudonym and Shakespeare of Stratford could not have written the plays and poems.

The Stratford man left behind a will and a variety of personal possessions but these did not include books, manuscripts, or letters he had received. If he ever wrote any letters, they have all been lost. The five Shakespeare signatures on centuries-old legal documents indicate nothing, pseudonym adherents say, except that he could barely write his own name. We know that Shakespeare of Stratford did not teach his two children to read. He may have been illiterate.

It certainly seems possible (to me) that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym and if Whittemore is correct we can now see why the true identity of the writer was purposely obscured: the existence of a Tudor heir, if widely known, would have had huge political impact.

If you are among the many smart people who are 100% certain that "Shakespeare" was NOT a pseudonym, then Whittemore's book obviously isn't for you.

The book itself contains each of the sonnets side by side with Whittemore's interpretation. The author also provides some background information and many pages of detailed line by line cross references between the sonnets, Shakespeare's work, de Vere's writing, possible sources etc.

For me, personally, understanding the meaning of Sonnet 140: "Be wise as thou art cruel, do not press/ My tongue-tied patience with too much disdain/ Lest sorrow lend me words and words express/ The manner of my pity-wanting pain" was worth the price of the book. It's obviously a threat, but against who and why and under what circumstances? Whittemore seems to have figured it out.

Buy this book. You will then be able to tell your grandchildren you were among the visionaries who knew the truth about Shakespeare decades in advance of academia. The orthodox view of the authorship issue - that the transcendently inescapable works of Shakespeare were written by a man who left the paper trail of a graindealer, but not a trace of a poet - is quietly crumbling from within.

Whittemore's work deals it a death blow.

The worm will turn slowly, funeral by funeral, as the stodgy defenders entrenched in their power spots die off one by one, and as their successors hedge their bets with ever more cautious statements about the controversy, until one day we will wake up to find that the "experts" will tell us they knew it all along. This will take about fifty years.

But you can know it now.

The truth behind the Shakespeare authorship mystery will reverberate through our culture for centuries. In years to come, scholars, actors, poets, directors, and Shakespeare lovers will look back to this book as the one that cracked the code and gave us the heartbreaking truth about the man who gave us not only the greatest plays and poems ever penned, but the very language we speak.

Don't be daunted by the 900 pages: it's a great read by a wonderful storyteller.

Michael Dunn
Los Angeles, California

Whittemore's Monument is a monumental work in every sense of the word. Finally, after 400 years, the Sonnets of Shake-speare have found a worthy interpreter, one who has been able to discover their original historical and political context and so reveal their true meaning. Back in their native soil, these most personal of poems flourish as never before, disclosing the tragic story of a king destined to remain forever uncrowned. In explaining the history Whittemore explains the literature, and vice-versa. As such, both the Sonnets and Shakespeare's work in general can be seen to tell the untold history of Elizabethan England, thereby assuming an urgency and reality that is compelling.

Whittemore's analysis of the Sonnets demonstrates his deep understanding of the politics and culture of the age. He knows what's at stake, and can see the big picture, of which the Sonnets are such eloquent miniatures. Describing the Earl of Southampton, the Fair Youth of the Sonnets, as a humanist who is "deeply committed not only to learning but also to the developing national identity in the arts, including poetry and drama", Whittemore goes on to write: "By turning his back on the political advice urged upon him by the Earl of Oxford, his father [ie to secure the throne by allying himself with the Cecils], Southampton ironically shows himself, above all, to be Shakespearean."

So does Whittemore himself, though without any irony, and four hundred years on his great tome strikes a thunderous blow for Shakespeare's cause.

The Chinese have a saying, "One step higher, a broader view." Though this refers to mountain-climbing, it also applies to the development of our understanding of Shakespeare, and to intellectual history in general. Hank Whittemore has taken "one step higher," and as a result, all of us can enjoy a deeper understanding of a supremely great writer, a writer whose life is as fascinating as his works.

T. S. Eliot said of the Sonnets, "This autobiography is written by a foreign man in a foreign tongue, which can never be translated." Whittemore's book allows us to translate this "foreign language," it allows us to understand the Sonnets for the first time. Whittemore has discovered a numerical structure in Shakespeare's Sonnets; he has discovered a Rosetta Stone for the Sonnets. Whittemore has connected the Sonnets to the life of the author. And what a fascinating life it is!

This is a monumental achievement. The author has re-read the sonnets in light of his realization of the actual author of the sonnets, and their existence as a diary of several critical years with historical reference.
Awesome. Comprehensive. Should be referenced and reviewed by everyone interested in the Oxfordian authorship debate.

Few books astonish. This book astonishes. If I were making a list of the 10 books I could happily content myself reading and re-reading for the rest of my life, the Complete Works of Shakespeare would obviously be on there (I'd opt for the Norton Edition based on the Oxford), but right after that would be this one: The Monument.

And is it ever monumental.

The other works on the Oxford authorship are all excellent and enjoyable in their own rights, but this work takes the case for de Vere to a completely new level. I am continually amazed (and delighted) at the insight and scholarship demonstrated in this most extraordinary analysis of "Shake-speare's" Sonnets.

Fifty years from now they will be building university courses around this work.

Don't hesitate. Just get it. You will be enjoying this book for the rest of your life.

I count this volume as one of the greatest treasures of my library.