At least one other observer, Joseph
Sobran, has noted extensive parallels between Emaricdulfe and the
works of Shakespeare. While this is certainly not the forum to discuss
Shakespearean authorship, it nevertheless must be conceded that the Emaricdulfe
sonneteer was either A) heavily influenced by the writings of Shakespeare, or B)
was the writer Shakespeare. You can find the following on Sobran's
website, but I'll just paste some of the pertinent info that should be
of interest to the student who is doing the thesis on Emaricdulfe, if not the
rest of you.
The style, though erratic, was sufficient.
But there also were details that had close matches in the Shakespeare works. The
more I studied the poems, the more Shakespearean parallels I found. Eventually I
identified more than 200 -- five per sonnet, or one every three lines!
At this point even my most devoted
readers must be skeptical. So allow me to present some of the evidence.
Number 24 of the 40 sonnets is the most
vivid and interesting example:
1. Oft have I heard honey-tongu’d ladies
speak,
2. Striving their amorous
courtiers to enchant,
3. And from their
nectar lips such sweet words break,
4. As
neither art nor heavenly skill did want.
5. But when Emaricdulfe gins to discourse,
6. Her words are more than well-tun’d
harmony,
7. And every sentence of a
greater force
8. Than Mermaids’ song, or
Sirens’ sorcery;
9. And if to hear her
speak, Laertes’ heir
10. The wise
Ulysses liv’d us now among,
11. From her
sweet words he could not stop his ear,
12. As from the Sirens’ and the Mermaids’ song;
13. And had she in the Sirens’ place but
stood,
14. Her heavenly voice had drown’d
him in the flood.
Obviously “Emaricdulfe” is a code name.
Though these poems are highly stylized in the Petrarchan tradition and far from
realistic, there would be no need for a code name if the lady they describe
weren’t a real person. She is apparently a lady of the court (possibly Elizabeth
I herself), and her admirers are courtiers. Presumably the author is a courtier
too....
Let’s begin with Shakespearean parallels
in the poem cited above:
Line 1: “honey-tong’ed.”
Love’s Labor’s Lost: “honey-tongued
Boyet.”
Lines 2, 5, 6: “enchant ... discourse ...
harmony.”
Venus and Adonis:
“Bid me discourse, I will enchant thine ear.”
Comedy of Errors: “of such enchanting presence and
discourse.”
Love’s Labour’s
Lost: “doth ravish like enchanting harmony.”
Line 3: “from their nectar lips.”
Venus: “such nectar from
his lips.”
Line 6: “well-tun’d harmony.”
Titus Andronicus: “the well- tuned
horns.”
The Rape of
Lucrece: “well- tuned warble.”
Sonnet 8: “well-tuned sounds.”
Line 7: “And every sentence of a greater
force.”
Henry V: “sweet and
honeyed sentences.”
Lines 8, 12, 14: “Mermaids ... Sirens ...
drown’d.”
3 Henry VI: “I’ll
drown more sailors than the mermaid shall.”
Comedy of Errors: “O, train me not, sweet mermaid, with
thy note To drown me in thy sister’s flood of tears. Sing, siren, for thyself.”
Line 9: “And if to hear her speak.”
Sonnet 130: “I love to hear her speak.”
Lines 9-10: “Laertes’ heir The wise
Ulysses.”
Titus Andronicus:
“wise Laertes’ son.”
Lines 11-2: “stop his ear ... Mermaid’s
song.”
Comedy of Errors:
“I’ll stop mine ears against the mermaid’s song.”
Lucrece: “As if some mermaid did their ears entice.”
Venus: “Bewitching like the
wanton mermaid’s song.”
Lines 13-14 clinch it:
“And had she in the Sirens’ place but
stood,
Her heavenly voice had drown’d
him in the flood.”
Lucrece:
“That had Narcissus seen her as she
stood,
Self-love had never drown’d him
in the flood.”
And note this rhyme pattern, in another
sonnet of Emaricdulfe:
O Lust, of sacred love the foul
corrupter,
Usurper of her heavenly
dignity,
Folly’s first child, good
counsel’s interrupter,
Foster’d by sloth,
first step to infamy.
Compare this quatrain from
Lucrece:
Her house is sack’d, her quiet
interrupted,
Her mansion batter’d by the
enemy;
Her sacred temple spotted,
spoil’d, corrupted,
Grossly ingirt with
daring infamy.
(Also compare the first quatrain with Venus: “love to heaven is
fled, Since sweating lust on earth usurp’d his name.”)
The style and themes are equally
Shakespearean; these lines, with their wistful reflection on beauty and
mortality, would be at home among the 1609 Sonnets:
O foolish nature, why didst thou
create
A thing so fair, if fairness be
neglected?
But fairest things be subject
unto fate,
And in the end are by the
fates rejected.
If any doubt remains, consider some
parallel lines and phrases from E.C. and Shakespeare (WS):
EC: “A beauteous issue of a beauteous
mother.”
WS: “Sweet issue of a more
sweet- smelling sire”; “When your sweet issue your sweet form should bear.”
EC: “Fair-springing branch sprung of a
hopeful stock.”
WS: “That from his loins
no hopeful branch might spring.”
EC: “For nature of the gods is to be
merciful.”
WS: “Wilt thou draw near the
nature of the gods? Draw near them then in being merciful.”
EC: “The stars that spangle heaven with
glistering beauty.”
WS: “What stars do
spangle heaven with such beauty?”
EC: “to yield Them coward captives.”
WS: “The coward captive vanquished doth
yield.”
EC: “a ship on Neptune’s back.”
WS: “o’er green Neptune’s back With
ships made cities.”
EC: “True badge of faith.”
WS: “the badge of faith to prove them true.”
EC: “So pure a chest pure treasure may
contain.”
WS: “Some purer chest to close
a purer mind.”
EC: “in her heart enthroned.”
WS: “enthroned in the hearts of kings”; “enthroned
In your dear heart.”
EC: “eyes that gaze upon thy beauty”;
WS: “an eye to gaze on beauty.”
EC: “my heart’s deep grief and sorrow”;
WS: “grief and sorrow still embrace his
heart.”
EC: “love-lacking Vesta”;
WS: “love-lacking vestals.”
EC: “modest Diana”;
WS: “modest Dian.”
EC: “love-choking lust”;
WS: “choked by unresisted lust.”
EC: “the high house of fame”;
WS: “the house of fame.”
EC: “virtuous monuments”;
WS: “virtuous monument.”
EC: “heavenly mould”;
WS: “moulds from heaven.”
EC: “bastard of nature”;
WS: “nature’s bastards.”
EC: “my yielding heart”;
WS: “my unyielding heart.”
EC: “in wealthy nature’s scorn”;
WS: “in scorn of nature.”
EC: “heavenly shape”;
WS: “a shape of heaven.”
EC: “plough the seas”;
WS: “plough’st the foam.”
EC: “rich jewels”;
WS: “rich jewel.”
EC: “the whistling winds”;
WS: “the whistling wind.”
EC: “changed his hue”;
WS: “change this hue.”
EC: “christen anew”;
WS: “new-christened.”
EC: “love’s purity”;
WS: “purity in love.”
EC: “love-kindled”;
WS: “love-kindling.”
EC: “chaste vows”;
WS: “vowed chaste life.”
EC: “Juno for state”;
WS: “highest queen of state, Great Juno.”
EC: “higher strain”;
WS: “high strains.”
EC: “heavenly gifts”;
WS: “heavenly gift.”
EC: “so sweet a saint”;
WS: “sweet saint.”
EC: “there all enraged”;
WS: “here all enraged.”
EC: “high pitch”;
WS: “higher pitch.”
EC: “death’s ebon gates”;
WS: “death’s ebon dart.”
EC: “richest treasure”;
WS: “rich treasure.”
EC: “true types”;
WS: “true type.”
E.C. and Shakespeare use identical
phrases, including these: “the world’s report,” “sweet repose,” “golden
slumber,” “virtue’s nest,” “holy fire,” “hell-born,” “endless date,” “deep
unrest,” “golden tresses,” “cruel death,” “suffer shipwreck,” “pretty action,”
“ten times happy,” “snow- white,” “true constancy,” “several graces,”
“well-deserving,” “lily hand,” “honey sweet,” “outward graces,” “honey breath,”
“the golden sun,” “weal and woe,” “sacred beauty,” and “princely beauty.”
And all this is the short list.
Coincidence, copying, influence, plagiarism, and so forth are out of the
question. Only one poet commanded this style.
The evidence could hardly be more
conclusive. Yet no scholar has even noticed these parallels, which have been
lying in plain sight for four centuries. It’s one of the most
astounding oversights in the history of literary scholarship.