>In the reading I've done on the Sonnets I haven't come across a
>discussion of how authoritative the actual sequence of the poems is. I
>don't necessarily mean which are addressed to the Friend and which to
>the Lady--obviously content and thematic cohesion, etc. indicate that in
>most cases--but what about the order of the poems in their respective
>subsequences? Do we base this on the first publication? And do we know
>by what authority the original submitter(s) of the Sonnets for
>publication arranged them in the order we inherit, assuming that that
>publication was unauthorized? Some groupings are natural, of course,
>such as the first batch entreating the Friend to marry and reproduce,
>but others seem fairly arbitrary. And do we have a best guess as to how
>the poems went from private circulation into print? (These are clearly
>neophyte questions, but as I'm admitting my ignorance, I know you'll go
>easy on me, thanks for which.)

I have a book of the Sonnets published in 1935 by J.M. Dent & Sons which
presents them in a different order than the usual.  The editor (M.R.
Ridley, M.A.) claims to have used an idea by one Sir Denys Bray which
produces an order of the sonnets using mechanical means, something
called a "rhyme-link," which I don't know the details of.   The editor
claims that this mechanical method (whatever it is) produces an order
more coherent and sensible than the order that has come down to us.
Actually, it seems a pretty sensible order to me to.  The order of the
first ten are: 20, 91, 25, 31, 53, 62, 22, 18, 126, 65.   I have no idea
if Mr. Bray's idea received any attention at the time, or if it was
thoroughly debunked, or what.  The book references "The Original Order
of Shakespeare's Sonnets," Sir Denys Bray, Methuen, 1925 as the source
which contains the details of the actual method.


Greg McSweeney asked:

>In the reading I've done on the Sonnets I haven't come across a
>discussion of how authoritative the actual sequence of the poems is. I
>don't necessarily mean which are addressed to the Friend and which to
>the Lady--obviously content and thematic cohesion, etc. indicate that in
>most cases--but what about the order of the poems in their respective
>subsequences? Do we base this on the first publication? And do we know
>by what authority the original submitter(s) of the Sonnets for
>publication arranged them in the order we inherit, assuming that that
>publication was unauthorized? Some groupings are natural, of course,
>such as the first batch entreating the Friend to marry and reproduce,
>but others seem fairly arbitrary.

In my view, the pre-eminent Sonnet analysis is that of Stephen Booth,
whose book "Shakespeare's Sonnets" (Yale University Press, 1977)
dispenses with speculation and demonstrates the vast range of possible
meanings, many of which put the usual and oft-repeated Sonnet fables to
shame. On page 546 (I have the second edition from 1978), Booth
describes how the Sonnet sequence (as published by Thorpe in 1609)
defies rearrangement. Although the sequence often appears disparate,
every attempt to reorganize it will interfere with those continuities
that after all do exist between the Sonnets in the originally published
sequence. This suggests that the sequence as it has been passed on to us
is deliberate, and therefore very likely Shakespeare's work. More recent
Sonnet criticism has begun to question the earlier assumption about the
printing being unauthorized. Personally I think the sequence is
Shakespeare's own, and I believe he authorized the printing. I also
think there probably is some kind of key to a fuller understanding of
the Sonnets, and that this may - or may not - involve a large-scale
resequencing. Surely there is more sense to the Sonnets than can be
gleaned from our current kaleidoscopic reading and their current
perplexing arrangement.

- Tue Sorensen

Greg McSweeney asks:

>Do we base [the Sonnet order] on the first publication?

Yes.

>And do we know by what authority the original submitter(s)
>of the Sonnets for publication arranged them in the order we
>inherit . . . ?

No.

>And do we have a best guess as to how the poems went
>from private circulation into print?

Not really. Very good questions. The reason the Sonnet order is
maintained is that most attempts at rearrangement have been proposed in
support of other argument. With no good results, the order has assumed
an authority all its own.

The Shakespeare Sonnet Order: Poems and Groups, by Brents Stirling
(1968, $8.95 at Addall) is a treatment of the issue that I recommend. I
think he shows well enough that the order of the quarto is not perfect.

Among many grouped sonnets Stirling finds (as all would) "intensive
links," and "close associations." But some sonnets are "unattached" or
"incoherent" in respect of their locations.  His premise is that
rearrangement restores the links within various groups, and I think he
makes his case very well.  He seems not to promote any special opinion
otherwise.

Without further discussion, you may read Stirling's "Poem IIB," sonnets
24 and 46 -- 47; or IIC, 61, 27 -- 28 & 43.  His presumption is that
amongst so many sonnets clearly grouped, some of the ungrouped must have
been intended to be together.

Gerald E. Downs

The Order of the Sonnets

I have argued in a series of articles that the order of the sonnets in
the 1609 Quarto is Shakespeare's: MacD. P. Jackson, "Aspects of
Organization in Shakespeare's Sonnets (1609)," Parergon 17 (1999):
109-34; "Shakespeare's Sonnets: Rhyme and Reason in the Dark Lady
Series," Notes and Queries 244 (1999): 219-22; "The Distribution of
Pronouns in Shakespeare's Sonnets," AUMLA 97 (2002): 22-38. I could send
offprints to anybody who is interested.

Rene Graziani's note, "The Numbering of Shakespeare's Sonnets: 12, 60,
and 126: Shakespeare Quarterly 35 (1984): 79-82, seems to me to
establish that Sonnets 12 and 60, at the very least, are in their right
place and correctly numbered. My colleague Kenneth Larsen pointed out in
an excellent paper delivered to the Sixth Biennial Conference of the
Australia and New Zealand Shakespeare Association, Auckland July 2000,
that Sonnet 77's "mirror" theme is singularly appropriate to its
position at the midpoint of the sequence of 154, and that sonnets
featuring a "glass" can be found in or near the middle of sequences by
Spenser, Barnfield, Constable, Drayton, and others.

In my Parergon piece I explore the nature of the organization of the
Quarto sequence, which is similar to the kind of organization that Helen
Vendler found within individual sonnets. Once you think of the order not
as chronological (a kind of biographical record), but as reflecting
Shakespeare's final intentions as he worked the poems into an overall
aesthetic design, it makes good sense.

Of course many good books on the Sonnets, including Hilton Landry's of
long ago, have tended to vindicate the Quarto order.

Mac Jackson