and ‘my Wat’. ‘Wat’ was used towards a person (OED), particularly one of closeness (‘a great wat’ was common). It was also one of Elizabeth’s pet names for Raleigh stemming from his first name, Walter. ‘Pug’ too was a term of endearment, ‘also applied to a plaything, as a doll or pet’. Indeed, the tone of this sonnet rather resonates with an adult affectionately correcting a foolish child. It is, to an extent mocking, and a role-reversal as it demeans Raleigh to something which can be objectified, and simply discarded. Evident also is the tone of familiarity – this is a woman who knows Raleigh, ‘Elizabeth’s response, carefully coordinated with Raleigh’s lines develops its own remarkably tender, coaxing tone’.
This affectionate tone of the verse here suggests that this is no more than a good-humoured tease between Raleigh and Elizabeth. Sonnets did, after all, form a part of Elizabethan entertainment. The reception of sonnets allowed Elizabeth to further showcase her resistance. As Stephen Greenblatt assuredly claims there can be no ‘privacy’ when a monarch, or any courtier, is writing. I agree with Greenblatt that the degree of privacy afforded by the environment of a Queen would be minimal, but I must add that this does not necessarily hinder her work here. The publicity worked in her favour. By utilising humour, Elizabeth can implicitly critique those questioning her status as the ‘Virgin Queen’ through the form of light-hearted entertainment. Humour is an effective medium for concealing accusation. The method of ambiguity here is very different to that of the initial epigram, but nevertheless, Elizabeth is ever-conscious of her turbulent environment and critical audience.
Some criticism does however note that there can be some doubts as to whether this verse was Elizabeth’s, with Leah Marcus explaining how Elizabeth’s answer has ‘strikes through the identification and the poem itself’, causing a questionability of its authenticity. This shall be considered, although of course its authorship is not a question one can fully answer. Verse was not written solely for print publication but manuscript circulation, contrasting with a modern-day audience and our understanding of copyright and ownership. ‘Copyright’ simply did not exist. Any form of writing could have been appropriated, edited or shaped to fit the idealised viewpoint of the editor, before it is exchanged. This was the adoption of shared culture. I suggest, that because of this ‘shared culture’, it is incredible that Elizabeth could be questioning rigid, accepted gender roles. As the most read woman of her period, her participation in this ‘shared culture’ demonstrates the significance of the Queen’s role for women writers. It is also important to remember is that, for Elizabeth, ‘only three poems – all written before she became queen
