The exact date of composition is not known, but DGR probably wrote it in the summer of 1869, perhaps as late as August. It could have been written much earlier, in 1861 or even 1858, as Jan Marsh suggests. Neither the British Library manuscript nor the (later) Fitzwilliam manuscript settle the question of the poem's date of composition.

Several passages in the sonnet were labored over in the 1869-1870 proofs, in particular line 8. On 2 September he wrote to his brother: “I have changed the title of ‘Placatâ Venere’ to ‘Nuptial Sleep’ which I think will help it to stand fire, and have improved some lines in it. However when you see it, I want you to say if you think one can say ‘their long kiss severed’ and ‘their bosoms sundered’ or whether ‘was severed’ and ‘were sundered’ are necessary. I should think either would do.” He returned to the matter on 14 September: “About ‘Nuptial Sleep.’ I enclose the proof before the last to ask you about the MS. alteration at the bottom, which is now in print. Above and below it I have written a further variation underlined. Do you think this or the present printed one best? I incline to the printed one. Then as to ‘chirped at each other.’ This is expressive of the lips kissing at each other as they lie apart. But is it clear, or if clear is it pleasant? Would it be better ‘kissed at each other’ or more likely ‘moaned to each other’? Or does any other phrase occur to you? Or do you like it as it stands?” Finally, on 3 October, he settled the problem of line 8: “I think I have hit the mark now in that line of ‘Nuptial Sleep’: ‘Fawned on each other where they lay apart.’ (see Fredeman, Correspondence , 69. 146, 154, 168 ).

This is the most notorious sonnet in sequence, and was particularly set apart by Buchanan in as an emblem of the indecency of DGR's work. DGR's reply to Buchanan's attack on the poem appeared in his essay .

Although it does not appear in the extant copies of the Penkill Proofs (printed in mid-August), the sonnet was in fact printed in those proofs (on page 137), but was removed by DGR, who was well aware of the difficulty it might present for some readers: “I think I must include the Sonnet ‘Placatâ Venere’ as it is one of my best, but if you are showing the things en famille you had better remove it (it is torn out as you will see) and replace it at the end of the first section of Sonnets—not as paged. However of this I may perhaps write further.” (see his letter to WMR of 21 August 1869, Fredeman, Correspondence , 69. 130 ). In sending the proofs to WMR he asked his brother if he thought the sonnet should be included, and the latter replied that it should (see Peattie, , 218, 230 ).

It was kept through the subsequent pre-publication texts and published in the 1870 as Sonnet V in . Baum asserts that “it was withdrawn in the seventh edition, 1872” of this volume ( Baum, , 74n ), but there was no seventh edition; and the poem appears in all six of the Ellis editions, as well as the 1874 Tauchnitz edition. It was, however, removed from the sequence published in the 1881 volume and did not appear in any of the collected editions until it was restored in WMR's two-volume edition of 1904 (I. 98), where it is numbered VIb. (But in 1894 the American edition of published by Copeland and Day printed the sonnet as part of the sequence.) It is now regularly printed as Sonnet VIa in the sequence.

Baum, ed., , 73-75 Mégroz, , 196-201 Riede, , 123-126 Sharp, , 412-414