VOLUME 1: The 560 pages of the first Volume explain Shakespeare's nature-based philosophy in detail, with Appendices and a Glossary that provide further analysis.
       VOLUME 2: The 372 pages of the second Volume provide commentaries on the 154 individual sonnets, and critiques the history of egregious emendations.
       VOLUME 3:The 488 pages of the third Volume selections provide commentaries on Shakespeare's four longer poems and five of the plays from the 1623 Folio.
       VOLUME 4: The 284 pages of the fourth Volume consider proto-quaternary thinkers and artists whose combined insights led to an understanding of Shakespeare's Sonnet philosophy, and then critiques ten thinkers who tried but failed to appreciate the nature-based Sonnet philosophy behind all thirty-six plays in the 1623 Folio.

Part 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.31 Part 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 Part 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.52 3.53 3.54 3.55 3.56 3.57 3.58 3.59 3.60 3.61 3.62 3.63 3.64 3.65 3.66 3.67 3.68 3.69 3.70 3.71 3.72 3.73 3.74 3.75 3.76 3.77 3.78 3.79 3.80 3.81 3.82 3.83 3.84 3.85 3.86 3.87 3.88 3.89 3.90 3.91 3.92 3.93 3.94 3.95 3.96 3.97 3.98 3.99 3.100 3.101 3.102 3.103 3.104 3.105 3.106 3.107 3.108 3.109 3.110 3.111 3.112 3.113 3.114 3.115 3.116 3.117 3.118 3.119 3.120 3.121 3.122 3.123 Part 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 Part 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9

Nature and the sexual dynamic The 154 sonnet as a unity The 154 sonnets as a unity The Sonnets, male or female Nature Nature, the sovereign mistress Nature, unity and diversity Nature and the arrangement of the sonnets in Q Time in the Sonnets Summary The division into two sequences The traditional names given the female and male The female as Mistress The male as Master Mistress or youth The 28 Mistress sonnets The 28 Mistress sonnets as a unity The priority of the Mistress over the Master Mistress The Mistress and the Poet The structure for music Truth and beauty in the Mistress sequence The Poet and the Mistress The last two sonnets Summary 126 sonnets to the Master Mistress or youth The Master Mistress as less than unity The Master Mistress and the Poet The Master Mistress and time Truth and beauty in the Master Mistress sequence The audit of the Master Mistress Summary The Nature template Conclusion The increase argument Internal structure of the Master Mistress sonnets The increase argument The 14 increase sonnets The inherent order in sonnets 20 to 154 The order of presentation in Q Increase and truth and beauty in the first 14 sonnets The significance of the number 14 The symbolism of 14 The argument of the individual increase sonnets Sonnet 11 Birth, death and life Sonnets 9 and 10 and the basis of love Sonnets 3 and 13, mother and father Sonnet 14, the priority of increase Summary The increase template The body template The persistence of the increase argument The increase argument in the poems and plays Conclusion Truth and beauty The words truth and beauty The logical conditions for truth and beauty The inherent order of the truth and beauty sonnets The positioning of the truth and beauty sonnets The poetry and increase sonnets (15 to 19) The individual poetry and increase sonnets The introduction of the Poet The Poet's relation to the set of 154 sonnets The Poet of the Sonnets The Poet as male or female The rival poet Increase and truth and beauty in the first sonnet Truth and beauty in sonnets 20 to 154 The logical divisions in the truth and beauty sonnets Truth and beauty in the Master Mistress sequence Truth and beauty in the Mistress sequence The mythic possibility Truth and beauty in sonnets 20 to 126 From increase to truth and beauty The pattern of truth and beauty in the youth sequence The introduction of the major themes Sonnets 20/21, beauty and the Muse Sonnet 22 and personae Sonnet 23 and writing Sonnet 24 and the eyes Sonnets 25 and 26 and stars Sonnets 27, 28, 43, and 61 as consecutive sonnets Sonnets 29 and 30 and the priority of increase Sonnet 31 and the cost of idealism Sonnet 32 and the rival poet Sonnets 33, 34, 35, the ideal in truth and beauty Sonnet 37 and truth and beauty Sonnet 38 and the relation of 9, 1, and 10 Sonnets 41 and 42, the youth and the Mistress Sonnet 44 and 45 and the four elements Sonnets 46 and 47, the eyes and heart Sonnets 48 and 49, personae Sonnets 50, 51, and 52, the journey to maturity Sonnet 53 and increase by the millions Sonnet 54 and truth and beauty Sonnet 55 and the content of verse Sonnets 57 to 60,and 63 to 65, sonnets to time Sonnet 62 and truth and beauty Sonnets 63 to 65, the theme of poetry to life Sonnet 66 and truth Sonnets 67 and 68, nature/Nature Sonnet 69 and truth and beauty Sonnets with contemporary references Sonnets 71 to 75, death and life Sonnets 76 and 77, the content of poetry The rival poet sonnets, 78 to 86 Sonnets 87 to 94, the cost of the ideal Sonnets 95 and 96, beauty and then truth Sonnets 97 and 98 on increase Sonnet 99 in 15 lines Sonnets 100 to 103, truth and beauty and the Muse Sonnet 104, the natural cycle of maturity Sonnet 105, idolatry Sonnet 106 and the vanity of writing Sonnets 110 and 111, God and Nature Sonnets 115 and 116, the truth of increase Sonnets 117 to 119, the benefit of ill Sonnets 120, 121, the nature of evil Sonnets 123, 124, the foiling of time Sonnet 125, the youth's choice Sonnet 126, the final audit Summary Truth and beauty in sonnets 127 to 154 The organisation of the Mistress sequence Sonnet 127, beauty introduced Sonnet 128, the second music sonnet Sonnet 129, the expense of Spirit Sonnet 130, the five senses Sonnets 131 and 132, good and bad deeds Sonnets 133 and 134, the Mistress and the youth Sonnets 135 and 136, the Will sonnets Sonnet 137, beauty as seeing, truth as saying Sonnet 138, the Mistress swears Sonnet 139, the eye and the tongue Sonnet 140, wise and cruel Sonnets 142 and 143, analysis of truth Sonnet 143, increase revisited Sonnet 144, the youth, the Mistress and the Poet Sonnet 145, the source of Shakespeare's poetry Sonnet 146, the cost of souls Sonnet 147, truth reiterated Sonnets 148 to 150, truth and true sight Sonnet 151, love and conscience Sonnet 152, truth unequivocal Sonnets 153 and 154, the erotic finale Summary of truth and beauty in sonnets 20 to 154 The Rose and the Muse The Rose and Eros The 9 Muses of old Sonnet 1, beauty's Rose Sonnet 35, the cankered Rose Sonnet 54, the Rose and truth Sonnets 67 and 68, the Rose and store Sonnets 95 and 98, truth from the Rose Sonnet 99, the Poet's blushing shame Sonnet 109, the universal Rose/Eros Sonnet 130, the Mistress' Rose The Muse Sonnet 21, the lesser Muse Sonnet 32, the Poet's Muse Sonnet 38, the Muses reconciled Sonnets 78 to 86 to the rival poet Sonnet 100 to 103, the definitive Muse The eyes, the source of truth and beauty Sonnet 14, knowledge from the eyes Sonnets 15, 25, 26 and 28, the starry eyes Sonnet 116, the erotic star Sonnet 132, the morning eyes The logic of the stars Sonnet 24 and others, from eye to mind to heart Sonnet 55 and others, the eye as sexual organ Summary Ideas and sensations Ethics and aesthetics The truth and beauty template The Nature templates The correct multiplicity Conclusion The logic of myth Shakespeare's natural logic The preconditions for mythic expression From the Nature/female/male dynamic to the mythic Standard definitions of sexual and erotic The female and male as the premises for argument The Sonnets as template for the argument of the plays The female and male in the argument of the plays The parody in the plays of inconsistent argument The relation of male and female in biblical thought The feminine and the masculine The role of the Master Mistress The feminine male and the masculine female The illogical relation of feminine and masculine The Poet as person and persona The sexual and the erotic The sexual dynamic The transition from the sexual to the erotic The erotic dynamic Immortality: Nature, the sexual, or the erotic Immortality in the poetry and increase sonnets Immortality in other sonnets to the youth The mythic Poet in Nature The mythic Poet and the sexual/erotic dynamic The mythic Poet and the rival poet sonnets The mythic numerology The Poet's complete logic The logical conditions for any mythic expression Models of inconsistency Conclusion The cryptic numerology The encrypted numerology of the Dedication etc The Dedication and sonnet 126 The K A, and the Mr.W. H. Sonnets 135 and 136 Sonnet 145 Sonnet 99 Diagram of the shape of the whole set A Lover's Complaint Conclusion

33 35 37 38 39 39 41 41 42 42 42 44 45 47 48 49 49 50 53 56 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 73 75 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 89 93 95 99 100 101 102 104 112 115 117 118 119 120 121 123 129 130 132 133 134 135 138 139 139 140 143 144 144 145 148 148 155 162 163 166 167 171 172 174 175 177 177 180 181 182 182 183 184 185 186 187 191 192 193 194 196 197 198 200 201 202 205 207 208 209 209 210 212 212 214 216 218 219 220 221 221 222 223 224 226 226 226 228 229 231 232 233 235 236 237 238 238 239 240 241 243 245 246 247 247 248 249 250 251 252 252 253 254 255 256 256 256 258 258 259 260 263 266 267 269 271 271 272 273 277 278 279 280 284 287 289 292 295 298 300 301 302 304 305 306 310 311 313 314 316 318 320 321 322 324 326 331 333 335 339 341 343 350 351 352 357 359 361 363 363 366 370 372 372 373 375 376

Epilogue Facsimile of Q Appendices

377 379 461

A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9

Truth and beauty in Q Sonnet terms in prefaces and poems from 1599 to 1640 Logically connected sonnets in Q Numerological references in Q Judgment and knowledge in Q The Rose and Muse in Q Capitals in Q The 'eye' in Q Concordance of selected words

462 465 468 469 473 474 475 476 477

Glossary Selected Bibliography Index

489 549 553

When I look back over the last 25 years, I can identify a series of events that led to the appreciation of Shakespeare’s philosophy presented here for the first time. While in retrospect many youthful experiences were influential, it was not until the early 1970s that the first significant event occurred. At the time I was a student at the School of Fine Arts in Auckland. For the first year or so my work was modeled on the stimulus provided by the programmes of the School. Then, in the second year after the birth of a daughter, I experienced an elevated sense of creativity resulting in a series of works of greater purpose and intensity.
        In the following years I tried to capitalise on the new source of inspiration but was unable to sustain the impetus. As the work faltered I resolved to search for criteria that enabled depth and consistency in the artistic process. The fundamental questioning of the idea of art by the avant-garde movements of the early 1970s deepened my interest in such seminal figures as the French artist Marcel Duchamp, the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and the biologist Charles Darwin. A study of their ideas led to an investigation across a wide range of interests but with no immediate answer to the question of consistency. Instead, the influence of Wittgenstein led to an interest in the social programme of the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy who had turned his back on his major works to write criticism and parables. I experienced a strong desire to explore the priority of life over art.
        It was in this frame of mind that we, my partner Maree, my daughters and I, considered moving from Auckland into the countryside. I had been raised on the central plateau of the North Island under Mount Ruapehu so the idea of revisiting the mountains was appealing. In 1981 we moved to provincial life under its near neighbour Mount Taranaki where our youngest daughter was born. With the move I renewed the process of rejigging my mind. I read widely and thought at length about the impasse of the Auckland years.
        Around 1985 a set of circumstances led to a health crisis out of which I struggled. In that period, in which morning and night I walked the road (Ladies Mile) around our property, the philosophic realisation that preceded the insights into the Sonnets came with a rush of clarity. My thoughts found their correct logical place whenever I held the underlying idea in mind. Though I had no capacity to articulate such a claim, I sensed I had moved past the difficulties in Wittgenstein’s work. I wrote the thoughts out and aired them briefly but without consequence.
        In 1988 I began a period of figurative sculpture. After an exhibition in Wanganui, in 1994, a friend handed me a copy of Ted Hughes’ Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being. As a result I began attending monthly Shakespeare readings in Wanganui to familiarise myself with the plays. When, a year later, the group read the whole set of Shake-speares Sonnets I was struck with the realisation that they embodied the same paradigm as the one I had written out in a rudimentary way 8 years before. The intensity of the realisation corresponded to the sculptural surge in 1972 and the rush of ideas in 1986.
        For the next few months I experienced a series of revelations that exposed and clarified the structure and themes of the Sonnets. Night and day the interrelating elements and the corresponding numerology pieced themselves together. I was stunned by the philosophic brilliance expressed so beautifully in the form of sonnets. I apprehended then, and claim now, that the Sonnets present the logical conditions for a complete philosophy, as well as the criteria for effective artistic practice at a mythic level of expression. In the period since 1995 there has been a continual unraveling of the meaning of the Sonnets.
        The book prepared from the findings of the last few years, details the philosophy of William Shakespeare evident in the Sonnets, poems, and plays. To do this with some coherence, and to do justice to the amount of original material, the book has been divided into four volumes. At all times it should be remembered that the four volumes are one book. If a point about the Sonnet philosophy seems to be addressed cursorily or inadequately in one volume, there is every likelihood it is addressed at length elsewhere.
        The first volume presents the philosophy of Shake-speares Sonnets. The philosophy was structured and numbered into the Sonnets by Shakespeare before its publication in 1609 in the book known as Q. The volume shows how the structure of the whole set of 154 sonnets is the key to understanding its inherent logic. It demonstrates how Shakespeare was able to use the sonnet form to present a philosophic treatise of logical precision and poetic intensity.
        The second volume presents a full set of commentaries on the 154 sonnets. It demonstrates that, when the reading is based on the inherent philosophy of the Sonnets, a consistent understanding of the individual sonnets is possible. The volume also includes a detailed dismissal of the traditional emendations.
        The third volume examines the way in which all the plays and longer poems are based on the philosophy elaborated in the Sonnets. It shows the presence of the philosophy in a selection of nine poems and plays and suggests Shakespeare had arrived at the rudiments of his philosophy before he wrote the plays and that every play is based on his philosophy. It is not possible to understand the plays and poems without first understanding the philosophy presented by Shakespeare in the Sonnets of 1609.
        The fourth volume focuses on the contribution of Darwin, Wittgenstein, Duchamp and Mallarmé to the possibility of understanding Shakespeare’s philosophy. It compares the philosophy of Shake-speares Sonnets to the apologetic tradition based in the rationalisation of religious belief. It critiques the reliance of Sonnet commentary on the apologetic tradition over the last 400 years.

These volumes would not have eventuated without the love and support of Maree Horner, who is my greatest inspiration and critic and whose partner I have been for over 30 years. The inspiration continues in my wonderful daughters, Talia, Teresa, Katie and Lucy.
        Crucial to appreciating the presence of a philosophy in the Sonnets was the reading in 1994 of the complete set with Kerry Hines, Joanna Paul, and Peter Scannell in Wanganui. These three were early contributors to the progress of the work, and Peter has continued to provide books of influence. The connection between Wanganui and Ruapehu was facilitated by Paul and Chris Hilford’s generosity in allowing me the frequent use of their Ohakune chalet as a writing retreat over the last ten years.
        I am indebted to Bryan Vickery for his many visits to discuss the work in progress and his knowledgeable TV interview. Likewise I was fortunate to meet Juliet Smith, who wrote an insightful newspaper feature. Both continue to be great friends.
        There are many other friends who I wish to mention as I recall their special contributions to the work in progress. I think of Martin CampbellBoard, Russell Christensen, Paul Cox, Fran Darragh, Richard Farrow, Rob Ferguson, Ben Gray, Alex Van Klink, Bill Lake, Maureen Leggett, Mary McLeod, Richard Montgomery, Diane and Rob Patience, Vanessa Pearson, Mike Radich, Peter Scantlebury, Pam Walker, and Russell Withers, and those I have not mentioned who have listened to part or most of the story many times.
        Two people in particular provided an opportunity to present the ideas to a select audience. My preparation for each of the seminars advanced the work considerably. I thank most warmly Professor Richard Corballis for organising a seminar in 1998 at Massey University, and Leigh Davis who generously organised a weekend seminar on his property at Whale Bay in 2001.
        A considerable number of scholars and teachers have commented on my explanations, some quite regularly over the period of the project. In their various ways Margaret Collins, Phil and Camilla Dadson, Ida Gaskin, Richard Habershon, Professor Les Holborow, Professor Mac Jackson, Professor Phillip Knight, John Paterson, Professor Michael Peters, Associate Professor Alan Webster, and Associate Professor Robert Wicks have made me aware of possibilities and difficulties.
        Similarly friends from the art world who have been willing to listen to the Duchamp connections to Shakespeare have made a significant impact on aspects of the work. I think particularly of Jim Allen, Pam Allen, Stephen Bambury, Derrick Cherrie, Andrew Drummond, Adrian Hall, John Hurrell, Robert Leonard, Richard Reddaway, Malcolm Ross, Alan Smith, and Marte Szirmay. And early on in the process Paul Smith, former Director of the British Council, NZ, lent moral support.
        A surprise one morning was to find an email from Ecke Bonk, the noted Duchamp scholar. His enthusiasm and suggestions have been invaluable. In the early stages of preparing the manuscripts for publication I benefited immensely from the willingness of Professor Richard Corballis, Professor Les Holborow, Mark Houlahan, and Associate Professor Alan Webster to act as readers of one of the four volumes. Their combined critical comments have removed many of the flaws in the manuscripts. I also wish to thank Helen Greatrex for reading an early draft of Volume 1. And I thank my copy editor Anne Austin for being only the second person to read all four volumes.
        I have been particularly fortunate to have the advice of Michael Gifkins as the project has progressed toward publication. I thank him for his sagacity and friendship.
        And I thank Shakespeare for being so patient.

Before giving a synopsis of the Sonnet philosophy, and hence an outline of the organisation of this volume, a brief description of the original 1609 edition of the Shake-speares Sonnets is required. (A facsimile of the original appears in the appendices.)
        The survey of the principal elements of Sonnets begins the process of demonstrating the involvement of Shakespeare as author in every aspect of the writing and publication of Q in 1609 (where Q stands for ‘quarto’, a page size obtained by folding a printed sheet twice). The book known as Q is the basis for demonstrating that the organisation and arrangement of the Sonnets, both in its overall logical structure and in the typographical details, expresses a singular philosophy of great coherence and consistency.
        Shakespeare organised Q so that its sonnets give expression to the principal components of his philosophy. From the title page, to the Dedication, to the set of 154 sonnets, to the final long poem, the whole book is a model universe that replicates the logical coherence of the natural world. The logic of Shakespeare’s philosophy is apparent from beginning to end. Only by viewing the book as a whole, in the light of the philosophy, do the seeming idiosyncrasies of the various elements cohere.
        Shakespeare’s attitude to Q is consistent with the presence of its philosophy throughout his other works. The logical relationship of parts evident in Q holds for the relationship of Q to all the plays and other poems. Shakespeare’s oeuvre stands apart from everything else because it is driven by a precise expression of natural logic.
        To appreciate Shakespeare’s works only one standard applies. When aspects of his oeuvre are separated out for consideration, the guiding principle is always the inherent philosophy of the Sonnets. For instance, when mystic addition is mentioned no amount of delving into Renaissance use of the procedure will reveal Shakespeare’s intent. Only the philosophy purposely presented in the Sonnets can provide the necessary level of logic.
        The elements considered here are:
                The title page
                The Dedication (1 page in Q)
                154 sonnets entitled Shake-speares Sonnets, (65 pages in Q)
                A 329 line poem entitled A Lover's Complaint. (11 pages in Q)

The title page

        The claim ‘Never before Imprinted’ asserts that Q is the first edition of the Sonnets. There is evidence that some, if not most, of the Sonnets were written in the 1590s. The use of sonnets in the earlier plays, the paraphrasing in the plays of sonnets from Q, the inclusion of two Q sonnets in The Passionate Pilgrim of 1599, and references to a collection of Shakespeare’s sonnets in late sixteenth century Elizabethan literature all point to the 1590s as the formative period for writing early versions of the sonnets before the final arrangement in Q in the years up to 1609. On the understanding presented here the earlier sonnets were revised (there are differences between the two Passionate Pilgrim sonnets and the final versions in Q) and added to in the 1600s until, in the period before publication, the last few were written to bring the number to 154. Sonnets 126, 135, 136 and 145, particularly, are later additions that refer to the philosophic numbering of the whole set.
        Among the details at the bottom of the page, the initials ‘T. T.’ and the date 1609 are worthy of note. The initials stand for Thomas Thorpe, the publisher who entered ‘a book called Shakespeare’s sonnettes’ in the Register at Stationers’ Hall on 20th May 1609. The T. T. is an important part of the encrypted meaning of the Dedication (see 5.2). The date makes the publication of the Sonnets contemporary with plays such as Cymbeline. The theatres were closed between July 1608 and December 1609 due to the plague (as they were in 1593 when Shakespeare published Venus and Adonis and wrote Lucrece). This would have provided time in which to prepare the Sonnets for publication. The date 1609 can be read as a shorthand representation of the logical relation between the Mistress and the Master Mistress as presented in sonnet 11. The relation is considered in the numerological details in 5.3.
        At the top of the page is an image from a block print featuring two curvilinear organic forms astride which are Eros figures. They rise from a truncated central figure below which emerge two grotesqueries. Nestled beneath are two rabbits. The image, and the ones above the first sonnet and at the end of A Lover’s Complaint, are typical of the time. The eroticism and the organic basis of the image are in keeping with the natural logic of the whole set and its two major sequences.

The Dedication

        This reading confirms there is no literal meaning. Instead it shows the conventional form was adapted by Shakespeare to encrypt the basic numerological and thematic structure of the whole set. The dots after every word in the text, the total number of letters in the Dedication and the presence of the two sets of initials ‘W. H.’ and ‘T. T.’, are deliberate devices inserted by Shakespeare. As a consequence, the Dedication incorporates the most significant numbers of the set: 154, 28, 126, 145, 1, and 9. The initials ‘W. H.’, for instance, are a cryptic reference to a fundamental numbering in the logic of the Sonnets based on the numbers 1 and 9, representing the understanding of the Poet. (For a full account see 5.3.)

The Sonnets

Following the title page and the Dedication there are 65 pages devoted to the complete set of 154 sonnets. ‘SHAKE-SPEARES, SONNETS’appears over the head of the first sonnet, which is unnumbered, with the remaining sonnets being numbered from 2 to 154. On most pages (but not all) the last sonnet straddles two pages creating a sense of continuity throughout the set. This is a deliberate arrangement allowing Shakespeare to incorporate a structure for time within the Sonnets (see 1.26).
        Every sonnet in the set has 14 lines except for sonnet 99 with 15 lines and sonnet 126 with 12 lines. All the sonnets are in pentameters with alternate rhyming quatrains and a rhyming couplet (ababcdcdefefgg) except for sonnet 126 which is in couplets throughout, and sonnet 145 which is in octosyllables. All the variations are deliberate and have a role in the presentation of the Sonnet logic.
        The complete set of Sonnets, numbering 154, represents nature as the prime entity in Shakespeare’s philosophy. The whole set is then divided into two major sequences. The first 126 sonnets are written to a youth, the Master Mistress, and the remaining 28 sonnets to a woman, the Mistress. The three elements, nature, the Master Mistress, and the Mistress, form the basic logical unit of the set. The deliberate arrangement of the whole set with its two sequences is the key to appreciating the philosophic dynamic or natural logic of the Sonnets.
        Within the 126 sonnets to the Master Mistress there are three groupings. The first 14 sonnets argue for the significance of ‘increase’, or the basic requirement for human persistence. Sonnet 14 states the logical relation of increase to the dynamic of truth and beauty or the process of understanding. There is then an interlude of 5 poetry and increase sonnets (15 to 19) that establish the relation between the increase argument and poetry. The remaining sonnets (20 to 126) consider the truth and beauty dynamic with regard to the youth.
        The 28 Mistress sonnets (127 to 154) contain the definitive presentation of the beauty and truth dynamic. Beauty as seeing (127 to 137) and then truth as saying (137 to 152), are given logical formulation in the Mistress sequence because the Mistress is prior to the Master Mistress (see 1.16). The last two sonnets (153 and 154) are in the mode of classic epigrams. Numerologically they recapitulate the Mistress sequence and provide a final flourish for the whole set. The allegorical nature of the flourish prepares the way for A Lover’s Complaint.
        Shakespeare introduces his mythic level of understanding into the set in the guise of the Poet. The Poet is initially encountered in the first person in sonnet 10 as ‘I’, ‘my’ and ‘me’, and is called the Poet for the first time in sonnet 17. Sonnet 145 is also structurally placed to identify the Poet. Shakespeare contrasts the Poet’s natural logic with an immature rival poet who is only capable of expressing the adolescent understanding of the Master Mistress or youth. The rival poet’s inadequacies are addressed in the group of 9 sonnets at the mid-point of the set (78 to 86).

The K and A

A Lover's Complaint

The layout in Q

In Q, the 154 sonnets in the complete set flow from page to page to enhance the sense of continuity (Fig 5). Sonnets begun at the bottom of a page continue on the following page in a way that corresponds to the curvilinear shape in the block print of the title page.

        The arrangement has a pattern. After the first 9 sonnets, sonnet 10 begins at the top of the page. From then on every twelfth sonnet appears at the top of a page. Sonnet 154 has a page to itself. Therefore there are 9 sonnets followed by 144 sonnets and then number 154.
        The arrangement introduces a temporal pattern (Diag 1) into the sequence (see 1.26).

The possibility of a philosophy in Shake-speares Sonnets

The logical arrangement of the Sonnets

Nature and the sexual dynamic

        Or in the terminology of the Sonnets (Diag 3).

        Because of the consistency of natural logic, the same extensions to the template for the sexual dynamic out of nature can represent a possible series of interconnections in the dynamic of truth and beauty (Diag 5).

        Once the implications of the logical unit of nature/female/male are appreciated then all representations of the logical unit can be read as representing natural multiplicity.

Increase

        In the terminology of the Sonnets (Diag 7).

        The Nature female/male template and the Increase template can then be combined to express the logical conditions for existence of human kind as a physical or bodily being (Diag 8).

        The structure of the whole set and sub-sequences plus the argument of the first 14 sonnets is devoted to establishing the logical conditions for bodily existence prior to the possibility of having a mind. Together they provide the given on which the logic of the rest of the sonnets devoted to truth and beauty (the remaining 140 sonnets) is based.
        So logically, the structure of the whole set and its two sequences is prior to the increase dynamic. Similarly, the increase dynamic is prior to or provides the logical basis for the remaining 140 sonnets whose principal theme is truth and beauty.

Truth and Beauty

        The template represents the logical relation between beauty (sensations) and truth (ideas) as expressed in sonnet 137 where what is sensed as best or worst becomes articulated through saying as true or false. The Mistress sonnets from 127 to 152 are devoted to exploring the logical distinction between ‘seeing’ and ‘saying’. Then the intensely erotic final two sonnets of the Mistress sequence (153, 154) prepare for the return to the beginning of the set with its increase argument.
        Because the increase sonnets in the Master Mistress sequence relate to physical or sensory processes only beauty is mentioned in the sonnets before sonnet 14. Then, in sonnet 14, the dynamic of truth and beauty is introduced in the final few lines in preparation for the role of truth and beauty as the logical basis for the remaining sonnets to the Master Mistress (Diag 10).

        The Master Mistress sequence from sonnet 15 to 126 considers the consequences of the logic of truth and beauty for the male. The arguments of the sequence provide logical remedies for illogical appreciations of the truth and beauty dynamic consequent upon the desire to excessively idealise truth and beauty. The significance of the truth and beauty dynamic as the logical basis for the sequence is evident in the 7 occasions the words truth and beauty appear together in a sonnet from sonnet 17 to 101. The evidence for the truth and beauty dynamic in the Mistress and Master Mistress sequences is considered in Part 3.
        The tendency to say truth and beauty rather than beauty and truth in the Master Mistress sequence is symptomatic of the difference between Master Mistress and the Mistress sequences. Truth precedes beauty in the Master Mistress sonnets because the principal focus, after the increase sonnets, is on the relation between the use of words as language in saying and sensations that arise in the mind from the use of those words. The dynamic of truth and beauty represents the relation between words and sensations formed in the mind. The sequence explores the consequence of the relation between ideas and sensations when ideas are reduced to sensations in the mind. Such sensations of the mind account for the sense of the ideal commonly associated with the experience of God as a superhuman potentiality. The sequence to the male, then, is the appropriate forum for critiquing the idea of the ideal or God.
        By first taking the logical implications of sexual differentiation in nature as a given, Shakespeare is able to articulate the necessary conditions for the persistence of human nature. He is then able to demonstrate the implications of those preconditions for logical functioning of the human mind. As a consequence of its logical dependence on sexual persistence in nature, he characterises the human mind as erotic or consequent upon the sexual possibility. The templates for beauty and truth and truth and beauty can be combined to give a diagram for the logical function of the mind (Diag 11).

        The simple and effective system structured into the whole set allows Shakespeare to characterise the logical relation between nature as a whole and human nature as a part of nature.

The Nature template

It should be evident from the templates for the body and the mind that there is an isomorphism between the two aspects of human being. This must be logically the case if the human mind is an aspect of nature. The isomorphism confirms that the correct logical multiplicity exists in Shake-speares Sonnets for the relation of the body and the mind. The combination of the templates for nature and the sexual dynamic, increase, and truth and beauty represent the complete dynamic of the relation of nature and human nature as body and mind (Diag 12).

        In the terminology of the Sonnets (Diag 13).

        The position of truth and beauty as a logical element in the overall structure of the Sonnet logic gives the dynamic of understanding a precise definition lacking in the treatment of ideas and sensations in traditional philosophy. Because of the logical consistency of their derivation from nature, Shakespeare is able to use the terms truth and beauty to characterise correctly the natural logic of ideas and sensations. The precise presentation of the truth and beauty dynamic also allows for a clarification of the meaning of the traditional philosophical concepts, ethics and aesthetics (see 3.119).

The Poet

The Poet of the Sonnets is the one who comprehends the logic of the dynamic characterised by the Nature template. The Poet understands the logical priorities inherent in the relationship between nature and the sexual possibility, between the sexual possibility and increase, and between increase and truth and beauty. The Poet appreciates that the sexual is prior to the erotic and that the fundamental distinction between the sexual and the erotic resides in the capacity of the sexual to produce a child and the incapacity of the erotic to produce a child without recourse to the sexual.
        As a consequence any form of expression from the human mind is erotic and most typically any form of mythical expression acknowledges its inherent eroticism by having its entities reproduced by non-sexual means. The biblical myth is a typical instance of a myth whose blatant eroticism (in the non-sexual formation of Adam and Eve in Genesis and in the non-sexual conception and birth of Christ in the Gospels) logically acknowledges its secondary status to the sexual dynamic in nature.
        The logical consistency of the Sonnet structure, established by the Poet, provides the basis for a consideration of the mythic level of expression in a culture. Shakespeare addresses the philosophic status of the mythic through the role of the Poet in the Sonnets. In this he differs from all other philosophers who do not account for the function of myth, nor give it direct expression, in their work. Shakespeare shows in the Sonnets (and in his plays and poems) that the effective expression by a Poet of the relation between the sexual and the erotic constitutes the mythic, or the logic of mythology. Because this understanding is conditional on the priority of the body as the sexual and the consequent status of the mind as erotic as laid down in the Sonnets, the Sonnets themselves are a consistent expression of the basic criteria for the mythic.
        The Poet introduces himself into the Sonnets in the first person in sonnet 10 only after he has stated the logical condition for the possibility of love in sonnet 9. All forms of love, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or the love of Gods, have their logical basis in the possibility of increase out of nature. The Poet then devotes 5 sonnets immediately after the increase sonnets, at the beginning of the truth and beauty dynamic (sonnets 15 to 19), to stating the logical distinction between the sexual and the erotic. They establish the priority of the sexual over any form of expression and recognise the complete dependency of any form of expression on the sexual dynamic.

        In the diagram of the Nature template (Diag 14) the sign for ‘is prior to’ symbolises the logical function of the poetry and increase sonnets. Without the proviso of the poetry and increase sonnets the Sonnet logic would not provide a consistent basis for understanding and expression. Each section of the Nature template can be identified with a particular grouping of sonnets.
        It will become apparent that the Sonnets not only articulate the logical relationship between nature and human nature but also give expression to the relationship by presenting the philosophy in poetic form. The appreciation of the relation generates a set of sonnets that are inherently logical and simultaneously mythic. The Sonnets are a testament to the logical conditions for a complete expression of Shakespeare’s philosophy at a mythic level.
        The way a particular culture expresses its mythology indicates its attitude to the logical relation between the erotic and the sexual, and a particular culture can only be superseded when its mythology is reformulated to meet the needs of the changed circumstances. The Western World still tacitly adheres to biblical mythology because no one has yet appreciated Shakespeare’s consistent reformulation of the mythic conditions for the modern period.
        The Sonnets are renowned for their unparalleled treatment of love, immortality, the idea of God, time, music, and many other areas of human experience, in all their various possibilities. Once Shakespeare organised the Sonnets according to the requirements of natural logic he could then incorporate or discuss any aspect of human existence with complete consistency. Shakespeare is able to do this with feeling and constancy because he adheres to the natural logic of humankind in its experience in the world. How the natural logic of the Sonnets characterises the various areas of experience will emerge in the following pages.

The influence of Darwin, Wittgenstein, and Duchamp

The significance of Shakespeare's philosophy

Other introductory matters

The function of the numerology

It was common in the Renaissance for poetic sets to be organised numerologically. Dante’s Divine Comedy had 100 cantos that added by mystic addition to unity (100 = 1+0+0 = 1). Of the sonneteers of Shakespeare’s day, Phillip Sidney, Samuel Daniel, Michael Drayton, Edmund Spenser, all tried their hand at numbered systems. Shakespeare elevated the convention to a philosophic level by numbering his Sonnets so they conformed to the basic elements of his logic. He also numerologically encrypted the Dedication and other features.
        The ability of this reading to unravel the numerological mysteries of the Sonnets is a consequence of the precision of the philosophic insights brought to bear on their logical structure. The revelations of the numerology serve to confirm the correctness of the reading.
        As well as providing a key to the structural elements of the philosophy, the numerology is evident in many of the details. Only those details relevant to the ongoing argument are presented in the body of the text. Other numerological details, added by Shakespeare as encrypted affirmations of his intent, are given in Part 5.
        Because Shake-speares Sonnets has a numerological system coherent with its logic, some numbers such as 1, 2, 9, 14, appear throughout the text as numerals rather than words to indicate their numerological function.

The process of mystic addition

To appreciate the thematic and structural organisation of the Sonnets it is necessary to be familiar with mystic addition. This numerological system is used widely in astrological determinations and was used frequently in the literature of Shakespeare’s day and before to give order to a sequence of poems. Shakespeare takes the method and gives it a purely philosophic function to enumerate the logical components of his system. Before Shakespeare, the most notable use was in Dante’s Divine Comedy (1321). Its 100 cantos add by this method to a ‘divine unity’.

        Similarly, the various parts and relationships within the whole add to significant numbers. Beatrice, Dante’s ready-made goddess, is associated with the number 63.

        The number 9 indicated that she was seated one place short of the divine.

        Of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, Sidney wrote numerologically structured sequences of poems or sonnets. Sidney’s Astrophel and Stella, published in 1591, has a simple linear numerological arrangement based on the 108 suitors to Penelope with 11 songs interspersed. Shakespeare could have used this as a model to develop the precise and profound linear structure of his Sonnets. Similarly, the elementary numerology of A Lover’s Complaint could derive from Spenser’s simple schemes based on such themes as the 365 days of the year (see 5.8).

The facsimile of Q and the modern English versions

The modern English versions of individual sonnets that accompany the text are reproduced on the understanding that they have their full meaning within the logical structure of Q. A facsimile of the complete text of Q is provided in the appendices.
        The modern English versions are provided to assist those unfamiliar with the original typography and spelling. They do not purport to improve or emend the original. Because Q was configured personally by Shakespeare to express his philosophy, this volume rejects the 50 to 100 traditional emendations dating from the time of Malone (1790), as they are only needed for a reading based on the inappropriate traditional paradigm.
        Only a handful of patently obvious typesetting errors and spelling mistakes are made in the modern English version. Letters such as ‘i’ and ‘j’ and ‘u’ and ‘v’ are changed to reflect modern usage. As the word ‘then’ had both temporal and comparative meanings in Q, and there being no ‘than’ in sixteenth century English, the comparative ‘then’ has been changed to ‘than’.
        While most of the Elizabethan spelling is modernised, in some cases where the original spelling seems to be suggestive, as in the spelling of ‘eye’ as ‘eie’, it is carried over into the modern English version. In all cases Q remains authoritative. The punctuation in Q is retained throughout (except where a comma has been used as a period at some line endings) as many of the traditionally accepted alterations within the lines dramatically alter the meaning of the affected sonnets (see sonnets 17.14 and 84.2). The brackets used for parenthesis in Q are retained.

The naming of Nature and nature

The principal logical entities of the Sonnets are nature (characterised as the sovereign mistress), the Mistress, the Master Mistress (or youth), and the Poet. In the Sonnets the words Mistress, Master Mistress, and Poet have their first letter capitalised throughout (except in sonnet 153 where the Mistress is in lower case). Other proper names are capitalised, such as Adonis and Helen and the three occurrences of the word ‘God’ in its various guises.
        Shakespeare’s use of capitals for proper names in Q is adhered to in the 4 volumes. The exception is Nature. Nature appears throughout the Sonnets in both lower and upper case. This is because Nature is not logically a proper name. When Nature is referred to as the ‘sovereign mistress’ in sonnet 126 she is in the lower case because Nature in the Sonnets is not a mythological God or Goddess but rather the a priori logical entity. While it is possible to talk of a God, or the God of the Bible, there is no logical state of a Nature/ nature or the Nature/nature. In most instances Shakespeare’s choice of case is intentional, as in sonnets 67/68 where human nature and Nature at large are distinguished. The variations are maintained in quotations from the works of Shakespeare and direct reference to those works.
        In Q, Shakespeare uses the capital ‘N’ for Nature when he emphasises the priority of ‘Nature’ over all else, as in sonnets 68, 126 and 127. Otherwise he uses the lower case ‘n’ for nature at large (9 further sonnets), and when he refers to human ‘nature’, as in sonnets 67, 109 and 111. The usage in Q is maintained in quotations from the sonnets and in direct references to them. Most of the references to ‘nature’ in these volumes are to the priority of singular nature over all else, with the distinction between the use of the word ‘nature’ as the logical entity representing all possibilities and its use to refer to an aspect of ‘nature’ usually identifiable by usages such as ‘my nature’.
        The priority of Nature over human nature is such that humankind needs to ensure conditions are favourable for its survival as a distinct species. Both planetary catastrophes and human inventions such as the eschatological desire or nuclear devices could threaten human survival. While little could be done to avert the former everything can be done to avoid the latter. To characterise the desire to overcome such threats these volumes refer not to human continuity as if it can be presumed upon, but to human persistence or the desire to persist beyond the present generation as a distinct part of Nature.

The philosophy of the Sonnets and the Sonnet philosophy

Throughout the four volumes Shake-speares Sonnets are referred to as the ‘Sonnets’ as in ‘the philosophy of the Sonnets’, or as in the ‘logic of the Sonnets’. Rather than use the unwieldy possessive ‘the Sonnets’ philosophy’ the phrase has been abbreviated to ‘the Sonnet philosophy’. Although the contraction could have been made to ‘the philosophy of Q’, the references to Q have been reserved for the facts of publication of general features of the 1609 edition. Because Shakespeare purposefully wrote his philosophy in sonnet form or, in the verbal form of ‘sonnet’ did sonnet his philosophy, the phrase ‘Sonnet philosophy’ or ‘Sonnet logic’ captures something of his intent.
        In these volumes ‘philosophic’ refers to an approach to philosophy typified by Ludwig Wittgenstein and exemplified by Shakespeare that sets out the logical conditions for human understanding within nature. ‘Philosophical’ on the other hand refers to the use of logical procedures to rationalise a preexisting set of beliefs as in apologetics, or to separate psychological attitudes from their relation to nature. See also the distinction between ‘mythic’, ‘mythical’, and ‘mythological’ in the Glossary.

The use of the Glossary

A difficulty for both the expert and the novice when reading this volume will be the meanings of words with logical implications or unfamiliar usage. The experts, particularly, will have difficulties because their learning is unavailing if they do not appreciate Shakespeare’s philosophy.
        A Glossary has been provided to give some indication of the meaning of the words Shakespeare uses to articulate his philosophy. The words are not defined according to normal usage because in many instances normal usage has distorted the meaning of the words. Such meanings have been prejudiced by the inadequate paradigm that has seen the Sonnets remain a mystery for 400 years.
        The Glossary presents a further section through the Sonnets. Its use in conjunction with the text and the diagrams should, over time, allow insights to develop into Shakespeare’s simple but profound philosophy.

Bibliography

Because Volume 1 presents evidence and argument for Shakespeare’s philosophy from a close analysis of his Sonnets and his longer poems and plays, there are only few bibliographic references throughout the volume. Any such references are identified at first by title, author and date, and if necessary by page number, and any further mentions by author and date. Publication details can be found in the brief bibliography of significant sources in the appendices.
        Again, because Volumes 2 and 3 examine the works of Shakespeare exclusively they have no bibliography and the few works cited can be sourced in the bibliography in Volume 1. Volume 4, by contrast, with its study of Duchamp, Mallarmé, Wittgenstein and Darwin, and in its ten essays on seminal thinkers, makes multiple references. The references are numbered in the text and listed in the bibliography at the end of Volume 4.

The relation of the Sonnet philosophy to the plays and poems

Though the poems and plays will not be discussed at length in Volume 1, their content is consistent with the philosophy articulated in the Sonnets. Volume 3 considers a selection of nine plays and the longer poems to demonstrate that they were all written as expressions of the philosophic understanding Shakespeare eventually gave exact logical expression to in the Sonnets of 1609.
        The plays and poems cannot be understood without a prior appreciation of the Sonnet philosophy. The pervasive infiltration of the old paradigm into every facet of learning means it becomes the recourse when difficulties are encountered in the understanding of Shakespeare’s works. The recourse to the Judeo/Christian paradigm is so common throughout the Shakespearean literature that only a thorough inculcation of the philosophy of the Sonnets can cure the blindness.

Conclusion

The material in Volume 1 is organised according to the structural principles of the Sonnets. The overall logic of the Sonnets is the ultimate recourse in the understanding of the various elements and details of the set. Everything presented here has its source in Q.
        The arrangement of Parts 1 to 4 is designed to reflect the logical relation between sexual differentiation in nature, sexual persistence, the erotic condition of the mind, and Shakespeare’s expression of his understanding. Nature and the sexual dynamic, the increase argument, truth and beauty, and the mythic role of the Poet are considered in turn. The progress through the Parts will be tracked by the consistent development of the template or diagrammatic representation derived from the logical unit of meaning. It will show that the basic template has the necessary multiplicity to represent the logical relation between the Parts. As a consequence it will clarify the logical relationship between the traditional categories of nature, body, mind, and myth.
        Part 1 will consider the whole set and the division into two parts. Part 2 will consider the increase argument of the first 14 sonnets. Part 3 will consider the dynamic of truth and beauty as the logical theme for the majority of sonnets. Part 4 will consider the role of the Poet as both philosopher and mythic poet. Part 5 will then present some of the numerological features not discussed fully in the preceding Parts.
        The brief indication in this introduction of the systematic ordering of the Sonnets into a philosophic tract of exceptional precision yet of unmatched poetic intensity should prepare the reader for the nature of the revelations in the five Parts that follow. By the end it should be possible to understand how Shakespeare was able to write a philosophy of unmatched logic in the form of sonnets considered the greatest love poems in the literature.
        The text and arrangement of this second edition (2019) of Volume 1 from William Shakespeare's Sonnet Philosophy (2005) remains substantially the same as the original. Fifty typos from the 2005 edition are corrected, N/n for nature restored and ‘Alien’ Poet (as per the 1609 edition) replaces ‘Rival’ Poet. A few paragraphs are updated to accommodate further insights, particularly from the 1623 Folio. This 2019 edition is the second of the four Volumes republished using digital printing, with Volumes 3 and 4 to follow over the next two years.