Not Just the Tudors – “Shakespeare’s Male Muse: A Mystery Solved?”

Date: September 11, 2025
Host: Professor Suzannah Lipscomb
Guests: Dr. Elizabeth Goldring (Renaissance Scholar, University of Warwick), Emma Rutherford (portrait miniature expert)
Podcast: History Hit

Episode Overview

This remarkable episode revolves around a newly discovered Elizabethan portrait miniature—believed to be by Nicholas Hilliard—that may illuminate the real identity of Shakespeare’s “male muse,” the mysterious Mr. W.H., and the inspiration for Sonnet 20. Professor Lipscomb is joined by Dr. Elizabeth Goldring and Emma Rutherford, the two art historians responsible for uncovering this miniature, to discuss its provenance, artistry, symbolism, gender presentation, and explosive possible links to the Earl of Southampton and William Shakespeare himself. The conversation delves deep into the culture, politics, and passions of the Elizabethan court, exploring what the miniature reveals about gender, intimacy, and creative inspiration at the heart of Shakespeare’s world.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Discovery of an Extraordinary Miniature

[02:29–07:47]

• Serendipitous Find: A Hilliard expert received a photo from someone clearing out belongings—a hidden treasure, a breathtakingly intimate Elizabethan miniature.
• Rutherford & Goldring’s Investigation: The object was immediately recognized as something special. “It has taken us places that I don’t think either of us ever would have dared to dream.” — Dr. Elizabeth Goldring [06:10]
• Art Historical Confirmation: Analysis by conservator Alan Derbyshire, combined with signature Hilliard techniques (unique painted velvet background, gold highlights, lacework), leaves “absolutely 100%” certainty that the work is by Nicholas Hilliard. — Emma Rutherford [08:08]

2. The Portrait: Radical Androgyny & Sensuality

[07:47–13:52]

• Description: An androgynous youth with blue eyes, auburn ringlets, delicate features—sensually caressing their own hair to their breast. “It really does feel like a love token, something very personal exchanged between two people and not necessarily intended ever to be seen by anyone else.” — Dr. Goldring [09:50]
• Gender Ambiguity: The precise gender of the sitter is ambiguous—unprecedented in Elizabethan miniatures, which typically presented clear gender norms, especially in portraits as betrothal tokens. “To not be able to tell the gender just seems absolutely extraordinary.” — Emma Rutherford [10:49]
• Historic Context: The gesture (clasping hair to the chest) is highly erotic and unique for miniatures of the time; it becomes more standard only in the next generation.

3. Symbolism: The Painted-Over Heart

[14:37–18:53]

• Hidden Message: The reverse of the miniature, once removed from its frame, revealed a heart (the playing card it’s painted on) that was painted over in black resembling a spade or spear.
• Emotional Intensity: The act is described as “an act of vandalism” and “a passionate act.” — Emma Rutherford [17:01]. Goldring adds, “Someone clearly was pretty determined to spoil the back…had a very strong, violent reaction.” [18:16]
• Speculation: This blacked-out heart could symbolize a broken heart—perhaps a furious end to a love affair.

4. The Sitter’s Identity: The 3rd Earl of Southampton

[18:53–25:12]

• Visual and Documentary Evidence: The sitter matches known portraits of Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. Textual descriptions corroborate—he was beardless, very young, and vain. “The very first literary work dedicated to him…was a retelling of the myth of Narcissus—who obviously falls in love with his own image.” — Dr. Goldring [22:44]
• Costume Details: While some men wore a single earring, the bracelets and black silk cord with a tucked pendant are highly unusual for men, more typical of feminine adornment.
• Social Relevance: Southampton was famous for his beauty, long hair, and ambiguous sexuality, resisting marriage and rumored to have male lovers.

5. Provenance & Return of the Miniature

[27:10–29:20]

• Family Connection: The miniature’s provenance traces it back to the Southampton line.
• Returned in Anger: It’s rare but plausible for such objects to be returned; the violent defacing of the back is consistent with a dramatic emotional rupture at the end of an affair.
• Miniatures as Soul-Bearing Objects: “It almost felt as though the miniature held a little bit of the soul of the sitter.” — Emma Rutherford [28:38]

6. Linking the Miniature to Shakespeare’s Sonnets

[29:20–39:16]

• Historical Timing: The early 1590s marked Southampton’s resistance to forced marriage and the first tributes from Shakespeare (Venus and Adonis to Southampton, 1593; The Rape of Lucrece, 1594).
• The Master Mistress of Sonnet 20: Guests recount the sonnet’s famous lines—“A woman’s face, with nature’s own hand painted / Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion…” — Prof. Lipscomb [33:00]
• Pronoun Swaps: In the 18th and 19th centuries, editors altered pronouns to obscure the same-sex address, showing the poem’s original intent likely implied a male beloved.
• Shakespeare and Hilliard’s World: Hilliard miniatures were frequently celebrated by poets; it would be surprising “if Shakespeare hadn’t in some way been inspired by a Hilliard miniature.” — Dr. Goldring [35:59]
• Role Play & Gender Fluidity: Southampton, a known theatre enthusiast where men played all roles, could be invoking the kind of gender fluidity that fascinated Shakespeare and appears repeatedly in his plays.

7. The “Mr. W.H.” Debate & The Only Plausible Candidate

[39:43–44:52]

• Two Main Candidates: Southampton and William Herbert (Earl of Pembroke); but no surviving images of Herbert match this sitter, and little evidence connects Herbert and Shakespeare in this period.
• Editorial Tradition: “There doesn’t seem to be a huge amount of firm evidence pointing to Herbert as the young man of the sonnets… nothing comparable to link Shakespeare and Herbert at that date [early 1590s].” — Dr. Goldring [40:45]
• The Printer’s Preface: The famous “Mr. W.H.” preface in the 1609 Sonnets may simply be a misprint, or refer to Shakespeare himself.

8. Final Speculation: Shakespeare as the Miniature’s Recipient

[44:52–48:39]

• Scenario: The miniature could have been a love token from Southampton to Shakespeare, returned to Southampton on the occasion of his marriage.
• The Spear as Clue: The painted-over “spade” also closely resembles a spear, possibly a subtle allusion to Shakespeare’s name and family arms.
• Emotional Resonance: “It’s a heart-stopping possibility… that we might see here a late 16th century broken heart, and that that broken heart might be none other than William Shakespeare’s.” — Prof. Lipscomb [48:39]
• Ongoing Investigation: The miniature is newly discovered and unpublished—scholars are only just beginning to scrutinize its significance.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I love the idea that someone found this on a clear out. I mean, I find cobwebs and broken Christmas ornaments, but they found an Elizabethan miniature.”
  — Prof. Lipscomb [07:16]

• “To not be able to tell the gender just seems absolutely extraordinary. It’s such a basic thing, because normally.”
  — Emma Rutherford [10:49]

• “We never would have imagined we’d see a miniature where the sitter is presenting themselves so androgynously; it stopped us utterly in our tracks.”
  — Emma Rutherford [10:49]

• “Someone went to a lot of trouble to deface the back of the miniature... it’s hard not to look at that and read it as ‘you’ve broken my heart.’”
  — Dr. Goldring [16:26]

• “Miniatures are quite performative objects in themselves… it almost felt as though the miniature held a little bit of the soul of the sitter.”
  — Emma Rutherford [28:38]

• “When we showed Professor Sir Jonathan Bate the back, he really did gasp.”
  — Emma Rutherford [47:43]

• “It’s a heart-stopping possibility… that broken heart might be none other than William Shakespeare’s.”
  — Prof. Lipscomb [48:39]

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Discovery & Expertise Assembled: [06:10–08:44]
• Artistry: Hilliard’s Unmistakable Hand: [08:08–09:43]
• Gender, Intimacy, and the Portrait’s Erotic Charge: [09:43–13:52]
• Symbolism of the Defaced Heart: [14:37–18:53]
• Who Was Southampton? Social Reputations & Evidence: [19:22–24:09]
• Unusual Jewellery and Gender Play: [24:09–25:12]
• Provenance & Acts of Return: [27:10–29:20]
• Connection to Shakespeare's Works: [29:20–39:43]
• Candidates for the “Mr. W.H.” - Why Southampton stands out: [39:43–44:52]
• Speculation, the “Spear,” and Emotional Resonance: [44:52–48:39]

Tone & Style

The conversation strikes a balance between scholarly rigor and delight in discovery. The scholars are respectful of the evidence and careful to indicate where speculation begins. There’s palpable excitement as the implications of the find unfold, and the tone is warm, even playful at times, with deep reverence for the human dramas and artistic achievements of the past.

Conclusion

Through careful examination of art, literature, personal adornment, and historical circumstance, this episode offers listeners a compelling glimpse into a secretive world—perhaps the heart of one of literature’s greatest mysteries. The richness of the evidence and the emotional weight of the discovery leave listeners with a vivid, tantalizing sense that the “master mistress” of Shakespeare’s passions might now gaze back at us, their own heartbreak painted in both image and verse.