Roy Neil Graves

     1. Shakespeares Lost Sonnets, The Runes:
Published texts and primary and secondary commentaries on the Runes and their discovery   

       


The 154 Lost Sonnets, how the 1609 Quarto hides them, and how they can be restored:

         In 1979 I discovered that the 1609 Quarto text of William Shakespeare’s Sonnets (Q)—which comprises 154 visible sonnets in a form illustrated later on this page—embeds another 154 sonnet-length texts that have been lost nearly 400 years. These 154 lost texts are intentionally authorized compositions, not my own fabrications. Each lost text systematically “recycles”14 of the visible lines in the Sonnets. Shakespeare buried the 154 lost texts in Q by means of sequence, parallelism, and a number system that is based on the “numbers” of the sonnet form itself. The 154 lost texts are gamelike and challenging, but all of them reveal complex patterns of wit and meaning and can be paraphrased. Whom the poet wrote the private poems for and why he wrote them are questions that I have theoretical answers for, but answering those questions is not absolutely essential to an evaluation of the buried texts themselves.

          In any case, Q is as much Game as Poem, and the whole cycle is an extended double entendre, with each visible line functioning twice—once in a visible sonnet, and once in a suppressed, unrhymed sonnet-length text. I call these “lost sonnets” the Runes because puns on that term proliferate in Q and because the antecedent coterie compositions that I found ca. 1977-79 embedded in Old and Middle English works also seem to pun on the term.  (These earlier works include the medieval Pearl, perhaps by the Gawain poet, and the Old English Riddles of the Exeter Book.)  In pre-Anglo-Saxon times, a “rune” was at first a mysteriously inscribed alphabetic character in the futhark alphabet, but during the Middle Ages and into Shakespeare's day, an evolved variant of the term (variously spelled, e.g., rown, round, as verb and noun) seems to have come to refer to a riddle, mysterious writing, or “whispered” communication. “To round” in someone’s ear was “to whisper.” 

        At first I called the lost Sonnets the Rounds, which Shakespeare—who scholars say would have pronounced “gun” as “goon”—would probably have pronounced almost the same way as he would have said “runes.”

          To begin to understand how the hidden pattern in Shakespeare’s Sonnets operates to hide the 154 Runes, one first imagines that each visible sonnet in Q is like one syllable in an implicit Megasonnet scheme.  (Since each line in any regular sonnet can contain either 10 or 11 syllables, 154 is the maximum number of syllables a sonnet can hold, and any sonnet with that many syllables would be, in effect, jam-packed.  Before now, nobody that I know of has paid any attention to the fact that the visible Q cycle is exactly 154 “numbers” long, but it becomes clear in the discoveries that I am trying here to explain that Shakespeare was toying with the idea that his cycle was analogous to an absolutely engorged Megasonnet structure.  The figure below illustrates this implicit Megasonnet structure, the basic organization plan in Q.  Each Arabic number stands for one sonnet—though, once the whole Q plan is understood, the numbers can represent the 154 Runes equally well.  (In Q as it was published in 1609, each of the 154 sonnets has a numeric heading as its only title.)  One general rule in the Sonnets/Runes scheme, a system of forking paths, is that no one alternative rules out the other, even if the two are antithetical. 

          The Roman numerals I-XI below designate the 11 sets that are implicit in the organization plan that Will silently imposed on Q.  The formula “14 [lines] x 11 [syllables] = 154 [syllables]” provides the numeric basis for this plan.  Since “syllable” means “smallest separable unit of an utterance,” the term can refer figuratively to one of the 154 unitary numbers in the Q cycle.  The figure below makes apparent the implicit “sonnet shape” that underlies the plan of the Quarto.

Shakespeare’s Lost Megasonnet:
The Organization Plan of the 1609 Quarto Texts
Copyright 1984 © Roy Neil Graves, All rights reserved.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.

1
15
29
43
57
71
85
99
113
127
141
2
16
30
44
58
72
86
100
114
128
142
3
17
31
45
59
73
87
101
115
129
143
4
18
32
46
60
74
88
102
116
130
144
5
19
33
47
61
75
89
103
117
131
145
6
20
34
48
62
76
90
104
118
132
146
7
21
35
49
63
77
91
105
119
133
147
8
22
36
50
64
78
92
106
120
134
148
9
23
37
51
65
79
93
107
121
135
149
10
24
38
52
66
80
94
108
122
136
150
11
25
39
53
67
81
95
109
123
137
151
12
26
40
54
68
82
96
110
124
138
152
13
27
41
55
69
83
97
111
125
139
153
14
28
42
56
70
84
98
112
126
140
154

       To see the Runes emerge from this overall Megasonnet scheme, one first divides Q into 11 sets of 14 sonnets each, respecting the division of materials implicit in the diagram shown above:  Each set comprises the 14 “numbers” that fill one of the 11 vertical columns in the Megasonnet pattern above. 

          I believe that Shakespeare first penned the 11 sets of the Q texts on 11 oversized, folio spreads like those shown in the facsimile mockup that I hold in the middle photo below.  Each spread would have been approximately 22 x 17 inches, roughly the size of the King James Bible (1611) or the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays (1623), and would have been penned in a small hand like that seen in the Hand D sample of the Thomas More fragment (below left)—a cramped Elizabethan script.  In such a hand, the 14 visible sonnets on each spread would have been arranged in 4 rows in a 4-4-4-2 pattern that mimicked the sonnet form itself with its three quatrains and a closing couplet.  

          Since each spread, housing 14 apparent sonnets, is essentially an independent composition unit, the 11 spreads could have been composed over periods of time and could have been moved around as the book evolved during the 1590s and before 1609.  Possibly the sonnets that are known to have circulated among Will's “private friends” before 1600 were not the full complement published in Q in 1609; I personally suspect that Sets X and XI, the “Dark Lady” sets, may have been written earliest. But again, such theorizing is not strategic in demonstrating that the Runes exist or in showing how they work—or play.


          The three illustrations below show 1) a sonnet-sized textual sample in Shakespeare's hand; 2) a handmade mockup booklet showing how 14 such blocks would have fit on a folio-sized spread; and, 3) the same spread arrangement showing “real texts” by using the first 14 of the Sonnets as they appeared in print in Q in 1609.

1 (top right):This sonnet-sized block of text in Shakespeare's hand is from pp. 64-66 in Sir Edward Maunde Thompson's Shakespeare's Handwriting: A Study (Oxford, 1916); these randomly picked (and to most of us illegible) 14 lines are blank verse (i.e., unrhymed iambic pentameter) and are used here solely to approximate the look of the original ms. and the likely size of the sonnet blocks; they are, of course, not the actual Sonnets—which have not survived in anything but their printed form in the 1609 Quarto.  Shakespeare's hand, expertly attributed by Thompson and broadly accepted by scholars as legitimate, is called Hand D because four separate scripts appear in the ms. of the unfinished play of Sir Thomas More, from which this sample is taken. 

2 (middle right): This folio-sized spread is my own handmade facsimile mockup of the lost Sonnets ms.—similar in appearance, I think, to the one that may first have circulated among Will's “private friends” a decade before Q's publication. This mockup arranges sonnet-sized blocks of text like the one illustrated above left (in Hand D) to illustrate how 14 hand-scripted sonnets would have fitted strategically onto each of the 11 spreads in the holograph of Q in a 4-4-4-2 arrangement that mimics the sonnet form itself, with its 3 quatrains and closing couplet. 

3 (bottom right):  This mock-up of the same spread arrangement of Set I in Q uses copies of Sonnets 1-14 as they actually appeared in the 1609 printing of Q.


        Below, for comparison, is a representative sample page from the 1609 Quarto.  The Folio arrangement shown above that I have reconstructed as a hypothetical original ms. or Ur-text would have revealed many features in the Q scheme that the 1609 quarto publication obscured—including the 11 inherent set divisions and the synchronic arrangement on each of the 11 set spreads that would have allowed both poet (during composition) and reader to observe sonnets and runes together, interlocked in a warp-and-woof pattern.  Printing the smaller quarto-sized book was no doubt cheaper than a large-format folio arrangement would have been, and little books rather that folio-sized ones were conventional for sonnet cycles.  The small-format, quarto publication probably served the poet's obfuscatory purposes by hiding the Runes from general readers more effectively than a larger-format, folio printing would have done.

 

 

A folio publication uses large sheets of paper folded once (into halves), while a quarto makes a second fold to generate smaller pages. (Folding a large sheet once yields 4 pages, counting fronts and backs, while folding the sheet a second time yields 8 smaller pages.) The Quarto volume in which the Sonnets first appeared in London in 1609 was, then, a small-format book with single-columned pages and an average of about two and a half sonnets visible on a given page, or about five sonnets on every 2-page spread.

          The Quarto, in any case, helped to lose the poet's inherent scheme, the one that I began to reconstruct in 1979.  Readers with the folio arrangement available to them would almost certainly at some stage have seen that one could “read across” the pages and thus recreate the hidden Sonnets by linking parallel lines horizontally. For, as a next step in recomposing the lost Sonnets, one proceeds within each of the 11 sets of the Folio scheme to read across the spread, linking first lines with first, second with second, and so on through 14.  Thus Set I—the first 14 sonnets in Q—embeds 14 runes that use exactly the same lines, but in different, systematic permutations.  This same pattern holds true in each of the other 10 sets in Q, Sets II-XI.  Of necessity, these lost Sonnets (or Runes) are unrhymed, given the absolute strictures of rhyme patterns that the sonnet form itself dictates in the visible Sonnets.. 

           As gamy texts, the Runes are riddlic and pun-ridden to the point that each line in Q is a flexible letterstring that encodes not just one set of meanings (in the Sonnets) or just two sets of meanings (in the Sonnets and Runes) but actually an almost infinite supply of potentialities, puns in maddening profusion.  In truth, Q is a reductio ad absurdum instance of double entendre, and for 400 years we have been underreading the puns that are incipient in its lines.   Such punning must have been one of the entertaining elements that the poet was going for as he prepared his poem/game cycle to entertain coterie readers—and, meanwhile, to pull the collective leg of “public” readers from his day until our own.  

          My deduction is that Q, with all its apparent “errors,” is in fact authorized jot-and-tittle, with all its quirky details fully functional in the game the poet was crafting. Since it appears after the fact that Will imagined Q as it would appear in print, and since some typeforms in Q appear to be intentionally mangled or file to achieve certain minuscule effects, it would seem that Thomas Thorpe, Will's printing agent, was probably in on the game. Various puns aimed at "T.T." also reinforce this deduction. ("Time" in Q, e.g., will pun on "Tommy.")  

          The effort involved in such an undertaking as the two-tiered Q cycle would have made it—in the poet's head, at least—his magnum opus, given that he lacked assurance his plays would survive as works worthy of literary regard.  In writing a sonnet cycle to try uniquely to ensure his fame, Will would have been following an established precedent among Renaissance writers.  His witty efforts at sprezzatura or “suppressed design” in Q also enjoy precedent, as does his numerological organization scheme.  Both “concealed art” and number schemes were conventional aspects of Renaissance literature.

       I deduce that Shakespeare wrote the Runes not only to entertain himself but also a coterie of private friends that probably included Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, the poet's only known patron; Dr. John Hall, the poet's son-in-law (and perhaps Susannah Shakespeare Hall as well); the printer/agent Thomas Thorpe; and others, probably including members of the poet's theatrical Company and perhaps members of the King James Bible translation group. Though it is clear that the Sonnets (and thus the Runes) began in the 1590s, I believe that Will either composed most of them or else revised some or all of them ca. 1605-1609, and that he had in mind both an epithalamion cycle (honoring the Halls) and a memorial to his twins—with Judith, the living daughter, an analogue to the overt Sonnets and Hamnet, the dead son, analogous to the buried Runes.  Though the opening 14 sonnets urging “marriage and increase” may originally have been addressed to Southampton, by 1605 or so they made sense as poems addressing John and Susannah Hall, whom I take to be the “master/mistress of my passion” in at least some primary sense. By design, the ambiguity of the Q texts seems to allow a number of auditors to be able to imagine themselves as the poet's muse, and identifying one person as the poet’s “beautiful friend” probably doesn't rule out any others.


   Journal articles explicating individual runes and explaining the Quarto scheme and its discovery:
   Self-published booklets, monographs, and web site:
     Shakespearean Runes published in The Norris [Tennessee] Bulletin (July 2001 and thereafter):

           In mid-2001, after reading Bartholomew Sullivan’s article on my project (see below), editor Eric Paquette got in touch and asked me to begin a weekly series of articles for his paper, The Norris Bulletin.  On 12 July 2001 in his inaugural free issue of the paper, he ran an editorial introduction titled “Unriddling Shakespeare’s Sonnets.” Thereafter the individual poems in the hidden cycle ran weekly, featuring in each issue one sonnet-length text—an example of Shakespeare’s 154 Runes. 
           Each article in this series of publications includes a recomposed text in three forms—a paste-up, an edited version, and a paraphrase—with background commentary.
The first eleven essays (FIRST SERIES, 7/4/01-10/11/01) select one recomposed example from each of the 11 sets in the 1609 Quarto. Thereafter, the series starts over (SECOND SERIES, 10/18/01-2/29/04) with a numerical sequence comprising the texts that have not previously appeared in any media. (I took this approach to make sure that all the unpublished texts got into print. From the perspective of the paper, this approach meant that each issue was running new material.) The THIRD SERIES, begun 2/26/04, runs all the rest of the texts in the 154-poem hidden cycle; these have all appeared in some form or other as edited texts. (A slight mix-up caused Rune 17 to appear in The Bulletin before Rune 1, but in general each of the three separate series has run texts in numerical sequences.) Interrupting the pattern of weekly publications were the paper staff’s breaks in July and December. In several instances, too, I used “my page” for other purposes than publishing the Lost Sonnets. (Just after September 11, 2001, I responded to Eric’s suggestion that I “write something,” and he used what I sent. On December 6, 2001, I wrote about the previously hidden signature in Handel’s Messiah. And for two weeks in April 2002 I used the space for students in my poetry workshop to publish their poems.)
           I’m much indebted to Eric Paquette for this chance to make the Shakespeare Runes individually available to readers, with space generously allocated for clarifying commentary. Eric believes as I do that these newfound poems are uniquely important as artifactual discoveries and primary literary texts and that they need to be recorded and made available to all readers who are interested in them. He has served voluntarily as the first publisher of this important series of texts. He has published the pieces just as I have sent them in, with the unexpurgated contents sometimes pushing the limits of what is decorous in a family newspaper. I myself, of course, have been conscious of a literate general (rather than a narrowly scholarly) audience as my readership, and I think that that sense has helped a bit as I have tried to prune my prose. Early on I got in the habit of suggesting prioritized cuts, but mostly, I think, the pieces have appeared pretty much as I wrote them, and the layout artists at The Bulletin have been ingenious in finding ways to squeeze the text to fit the space.
         Through 11 July 2002, each article in the series carries the editorial title “Unriddling Shakespeare.” Beginning with the 1 August 2002 article, the series title shifts to “Restoring Shakespeare’s Lost Sonnets.” And beginning with the 16 February 2004 article, the series title is “Shakespeare’s Lost Sonnets (Third Series).” Under all three rubrics, the purpose and typical weekly format of the articles remains constant. In rewriting materials to prepare them for this format, I’ve reexamined the individual texts and have learned much from the process of revision.

  • --FIRST SERIES (7/4/2001-10/11/2001)--
  • Overview, flyer, 4 July 2001.
  • Rune 6, 26 July 2001, 7.
  • Rune 37, 2 Aug. 2001, 8.
  • Rune 24, 9 Aug. 2001, 8.
  • Rune 45, 16 Aug. 2001, 8.
  • Rune 57, 23 Aug. 2001, 8.
  • Rune 72, 30 Aug. 2001, 8.
  • Rune 89, 6 Sept. 2001, 8.
  • Rune 105B, 20 Sept. 2001, 13.
  • Rune 123, 27 Sept. 2001, 13.
  • Rune 138, 4 Oct. 2001, 13.
  • Rune 144, 11 Oct. 2001, 13.
  • --SECOND SERIES (10/18/2001-2/19/2004)--
  • ---Set I (10/18/01-1/10/02)---
  • Overview, 18 Oct. 2001, 13.
  • Rune 3, 25 Oct. 2001, 13.
  • Rune 4, 1 Nov. 2001, 15.
  • Rune 5, 8 Nov. 2001, 15.
  • Rune 7, 15 Nov. 2001, 15.
  • Rune 8, 22 Nov. 2001, 15.
  • Rune 10, 29 Nov. 2001, 15.
  • Rune 11, 13 Dec. 2001, 11.
  • Rune 12, 20 Dec. 2001, 11.
  • Rune 13, 3 Jan. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 14, 10 Jan. 2002, 11.
  • ---Set II (1/17/02-3/14/02)---
  • Rune 15, 17 Jan. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 16, 24 Jan. 2002, 11
  • Rune 18, 31 Jan. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 21, 7 Feb. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 22, 14 Feb. 2002, 11.
  • Rune [23], 21 Feb. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 26, 28 Feb. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 27, 7 March 2002, 11.
  • Rune 28, 14 March 2002, 11.
  • ---Set III (3/21/02-6/6/02)---
  • Rune 29, 21 March 2002, 10.
  • Rune [31], 28 March 2002, 11.
  • Rune 34, 4 April 2002, 11.
  • Rune 35, 25 April 2002, 11.
  • Rune [36], 2 May 2002, 11.
  • Rune 38, 9 May 2002, 11.
  • Rune 39, 16 May 2002, 11.
  • Rune [40], 23 May 2002, 11.
  • Rune 41, 30 May 2002, 11.
  • Rune 42, 6 June 2002, 11.
  • ---Set IV (6/13/02-9/5/02)---
  • Rune 43, 13 June 2002, 11.
  • Rune 44, 20 June 2002, 11.
  • Rune 46, 27 June 2002, 11.
  • Rune 47, 4 July 2002, 11.
  • Rune 48, 11 July 2002, 11. [See correction 1 Aug., 3].
  • Rune 50, 1 Aug. 2002, 11
  • Rune 51, 8 Aug. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 52, 15 Aug. 2002, 11.
  • Rune [53], 22 Aug. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 55, 29 Aug. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 56, 5 Sept. 2002, 11.
  • ---Set V (9/12/02-11/7/01)---
  • Rune 58, 12 Sept. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 60, 19 Sept. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 62, 26 Sept. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 63, 3 Oct. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 64, 10 Oct. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 66, 17 Oct. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 67, 24 Oct. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 68, 31 Oct. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 70, 7 Nov. 2002, 11.
  • ---Set VI (11/14/02-1/30/03)---
  • Background on Set VI, 14 Nov. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 71, 21 Nov. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 74, 28 Nov. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 75, 5 Dec. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 76, 12 Dec. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 77, 19 Dec. 2002, 11.
  • Rune 78, 1 Jan. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 79, 9 Jan. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 81, 16 Jan. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 83, 23 Jan. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 84, 30 Jan. 2003, 11.
  • ---Set VII (2/6/03-5/1/03)---
  • Background on Set VII, 6 Feb. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 85, 13 Feb. 2003, 10-11.
  • Rune 86, 20 Feb. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 87, 27 Feb. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 88, 6 March 2003, 11.
  • Rune 90, 13 March 2003, 11.
  • Rune 91, 20 March 2003, 11.
  • Rune 93, 27 March 2003, 11.
  • Rune 94, 3 April 2003, 11.
  • Rune 95, 10 April 2003, 11.
  • Rune 96, 17 April 2003, 11.
  • Rune 97, 24 April 2003, 11.
  • Rune 98, 1 May 2003, 11.
  • ---Set VIII (5/8/03-6/12/03)---
  • Background on Set VIII, 8 May 2003, 11.
  • Background on Set VIII (corrected), 15 May 2003, 11.
  • Rune 107, 22 May 2003, 11.
  • Rune 108, 29 May 2003, 11.
  • Rune 109, 5 June 2003, 11.
  • Rune 111, 12 June 2003, 11.
  • ---Set IX (6/19/03-9/18/03)---
  • Rune 113, 19 June 2003, 11.
  • Rune 114, 26 June 2003, 11.
  • Rune 115, 3 July 2003, 11.
  • Rune 116, 10 July 2003, 11.
  • Rune 118, 31 July 2003, 11.
  • Rune 119, 7 Aug. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 120, 14 Aug. 2003, 11.
  • Rune [121], 21 Aug. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 122, 28 Aug. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 124, 4 Sept. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 125, 11 Sept. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 126, 18 Sept. 2003, 11.
  • ---Set X (9/25/03-11/27/03)---
  • Rune 129, 25 Sept. 2003, 11. [See amplification 2 Oct., 2]
  • Rune 130, 2 Oct. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 131, 9 Oct. 2003, 11.
  • Rune [132], 16 Oct.2003, 11.
  • Rune 133, 23 Oct. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 134, 30 Oct. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 135, 6 Nov. 2003, 11.
  • Rune [137], 13 Nov. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 139, 20 Nov. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 140, 27 Nov. 2003, 11.
  • ---Set XI (12/4/03- )---
  • Rune 141, 4 Dec. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 142, 11 Dec. 2003, 11.
  • Rune [143], 18 Dec. 2003, 11.
  • Rune 145, 1 Jan. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 146, 8 Jan. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 147, 15 Jan. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 148, 22 Jan. 2004, 11.
  • Rune [149], 29 Jan. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 150, 5 Feb. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 151, 12 Feb. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 152, 19 Feb. 2004, 11.
  • --THIRD SERIES (2/26/2004-11/4/2004)--
  • Rune 17, 26 Feb. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 1, 4 March 2004, 11.
  • Rune 2, 11 March 2004, 11.
  • Rune 9, 18 March 2004, 11.
  • Rune 19, 25 March 2004, 11.
  • Rune 20, 1 April 2004, 11.
  • Rune 25, 8 April 2004, 11.
  • Rune 30, 15 April 2004, 11.
  • Rune 32, 22 April 2004, 11.
  • Rune 33, 29 April 2004, 11.
  • Rune 49, 6 May 2004, 11.
  • Rune 54, 13 May 2004, 11.
  • Rune 59, 20 May 2004, 11.
  • Rune 61, 27 May 2004, 11.
  • Rune 65, 3 June 2004, 11.
  • Rune 69, 10 June 2004, 11.
  • Rune 73, 17 June 2004, 11.
  • Rune 80, 24 June 2004, 11.
  • Rune 82, 1 July 2004, 31.
  • Rune 92, 8 July 2004, 11.
  • Rune 99, 29 July 2004, 11.
  • Rune 100, 5 Aug. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 101, 12 Aug. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 102, 18 Aug. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 103, 26 Aug. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 104, 2 Sept. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 106, 9 Sept. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 110, 16 Sept. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 112, 23 Sept. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 117, 30 Sept. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 127, 7 Oct. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 128, 14 Oct. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 136, 21 Oct. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 153, 28 Oct. 2004, 11.
  • Rune 154, 4 Nov. 2004, 11.

    Publications of the Runes in other media:


Media discussion of Shakespeare's Lost Sonnets and of their discovery and significance (in reverse chronological order):
  • Brian Kindle, “Mini-Profile: Roy Neil Graves A.M. '61, Discovering Shakespeare’s Secret Sonnets.” Duke Magazine 94.2 (March-April 2008): 62. Web. 11 May 2010 <http:www.dukemagazine.duke.edu...>.
  • Bud Grimes, “Was Shakespeare Hiding Something?” Tennessee Alumnus 85.4 (Fall 2005): 34-37.
  • ---. “The Da Vinci Code of Shakespeare: Was Shakespeare Hiding Something?” UT Martin's Campus Scene 41 (Summer/Fall 2005): 4-6.
  • Robert Eric Paquette, “Shakespeare, Neil Graves, and The Norris Bulletin.” The Norris [Tennessee] Bulletin, 4 November 2004, 1. And see the letter to the editor on p. 2.
  • “ Last Issue.”  Unsigned editorial. The Norris [Tennessee] Bulletin, 25 October 2001, 2.
  •  Bartholomew Sullivan, “Sonnets Within Sonnets. Shakespeare: Scholar Finds Lines of Hidden Poetry.” From Scripps Howard News Service. Spartanburg [SC] Herald-Journal, 27 May 2001: C2.
  •  Bartholomew Sullivan, “If Eye Be True, Bard Hid Sonnets We Never Knew.” Commercial Appeal [Memphis], 19 May 2001: A1-A2. [Check archives.]
  • The Unionite [of Union University, Jackson, TN], Summer 1999, 29.
  •   Kathy D. Thomas, “Professor Uncovers 154 ‘Hidden’ Sonnets,” The Jackson [TN] Sun, 13 January 1999, 4A. 
  • “Hidden Poems Emerge,” Torchbearer [The University of TN] 23.2 (1984): 4.
  •   Richard Higgins, “Was the Bard Playing Tricks?” The Boston Globe, 9 March 1984, l. [Article is archived under title, 1984, and available for a small fee.]
  •   William McDaniel, “UTM Professor Makes Shakespearean Discovery,” The Jackson [TN] Sun, 29 Jan. 1984, 5D.
  •  “UTM Professor Claims Rare Literary Discovery,” The Weakley County  [TN] Press, 26 Jan. 1984, 1.
  •  “Prof Says ‘Hidden Sonnets’ of  Shakespeare Discovered,” The Miami Herald,  22 Jan. 1984, 3B. 
  •   Harriet Riley, “Shakespeare Scholar Finds Hidden Sonnets,” The Commercial Appeal [Memphis], 20 Jan. 1984, B2.
  •   “Graves Claims Discovery of Lost Poems,” The Oxford [MS] Eagle, 20 Jan. 1984, 12.


       

           Back to Roy Neil Graves home page