Let's start it easy - with one of the most known Shakespeare sonnets. Below you get the original text (on the left) and its more modern version (on the right).
| Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? | Shall I compare you to a summer's day? |
| Thou art more lovely and more temperate: | You are more lovely and more constant: |
| Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, | Rough winds shake the beloved buds of May |
| And summer's lease hath all too short a date: | And summer is far too short: |
| Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, | At times the sun is too hot, |
| And often is his gold complexion dimm'd; | Or often goes behind the clouds; |
| And every fair from fair sometime declines, | And everything beautiful sometime will lose its beauty, |
| By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd; | By misfortune or by nature's planned out course. |
| But thy eternal summer shall not fade | But your youth shall not fade, |
| Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest; | Nor will you lose the beauty that you possess; |
| Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade, | Nor will death claim you for his own, |
| When in eternal lines to time thou growest: | Because in my eternal verse you will live forever. |
| So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, | So long as there are people on this earth, |
So long lives this and this gives life to thee. So long will this poem live on, making you immortal.
First things first: in my humble opinion it is still a poem about love of a kind- you won't compare your accountant or your lawyer or your boss to a summer's day, will you? Well, no unless you are in love with them...my point exactly.
At first glance the poem is simply a praise of the beauty (rather internal than external but eventually, I suppose, it doesn't matter) of the beloved; the author states that even summer can't compare as it tends to unpleasant extremes of windiness and heat; the beloved one is always mild and temperate (an Internet acquaintance perchance?). In other words he/she is perfect. A bit idealistic approach but sometimes an infatuation can make you that blind. Ok, what's next?
The stability of love and its power to immortalize the poetry and the subject of that poetry is the other theme.
Here things become more complicated and interesting as well. The poet's answer to his love interest's perfection is to ensure that he/she remains forever in human memory, saved from the decay and oblivion that accompanies death. He achieves this through his verse, believing that, as history writes itself, his friend will become one with time. You can also say that sonnet 18 do not explicitly encourage the young man (or woman) to have children to preserve his/her beauty - it is included in the final couplet, which reaffirms the poet's hope that, as long as there is breath in mankind, his poetry too will live on, and ensure the immortality of his muse. So love might make you immortal but only if you love a poet or a writer and he/she decides to immortalize your humble person in his/her work. ;p Yes, you are very pretty and your character is incredibly sweet but I am a Pigmallion to your Galatea...isn't it a bit selfish statement? Well...selfish love is also love of a kind and artists tend to be rather self-centred, don't they?
After that short paragraph, you shouldn't be surprised that not everyone is willing to accept the role of Sonnet 18 as the ultimate English love poem.
As James Boyd-White puts it:
What kind of love does 'this' in fact give to 'thee'? We know nothing of the beloved’s form or height or hair or eyes or bearing, nothing of her character or mind, nothing of her at all, really. This 'love poem' is actually written not in praise of the beloved, as it seems, but in praise of itself. Death shall not brag, says the poet; the poet shall brag. This famous sonnet is on this view one long exercise in self-glorification, not a love poem at all; surely not suitable for earnest recitation at a wedding or anniversary party, or in a Valentine. (142)
As if a scholar might persuade anybody not to recite such a well-known, elegant poem when occasion arises. Note that James Boyd-White refers to the beloved as "her", but it is now almost universally accepted by scholars that the poet's love interest is a young man. Well, they had some hard proof I believe - if you want to find out more just consult this link to Wikipedia where some options are presented and names given.
Now let me know what you think. Would you like me to do it more often or do you find it rather pointless?
:-)
:-)



Your analysis of poetry is always very welcome, anachronist - would you care to analyse Byzantium and Sailing to Byzantium by WB Yeats? There's two linked poems that I find a real challenge.
ReplyDeletePoetry is very personal. There's trying to figure out what the poet meant, which literary scholars can argue about for ever, and then there's what you think it means, which is purely based on your experiences and life. And the meaning often evolves as you evolve. Maybe poetry is something you appreciate more when you're older?
would you care to analyse Byzantium and Sailing to Byzantium by WB Yeats? There's two linked poems that I find a real challenge.
ReplyDeleteWow, a challenge right after my first post. I might try to analyze them when I have more free time but, of course, I might not get them right.
And the meaning often evolves as you evolve
Definitely true. That's why I like poetry - you can return to your old favourites and find them changed...you are never bored.
Great analysis, I do admit hating to analyse! hate hate hate it. I will just read it and think about it my own way..which means I still analyse *noooooooooooo!*
ReplyDeleteI might not get them right
ReplyDeleteBut is there a right and wrong/black and white way of analysing poetry?
LOL Blodeuedd you seem to be a girl full of internal conflicts - if you write reviews you are bound to analyse your books from time to time...there's no escape from it, sorry ;)))).
ReplyDeleteTracy perhaps there is no such a thing, still some people sprout more than rather less platitudes while they are are at it...
I'm actually liking you and Tracy's back and forth! I love discussions like that. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks Melissa for your friendly support! Perhaps you would care to join in? ;p
ReplyDeleteWho did the updating to modern English? They seem to have altered the sense of some of the words? Can you be sure he is not writing about the Dark Lady?
ReplyDeleteThe Red Witch I found it on one site - if you are interested I might give you the link. About your second question - no we can't be sure imho but somehow the scholars can. I don't know why.
ReplyDeleteNo body knows. What we call scholarship are just very educated guesses. Could be a third unknown. I think Shakespeare was a bit wanton as theater people often are.
ReplyDeleteOh, he might have been wanton for sure. If he only existed, that is ;).
ReplyDeletePlenty of things about Shakespeare's life and work are unknown or only hinted at so I think we can assume there is as many options possible as you like, including a theory that 'William Shakespeare' was just a moniker of a group of writers who didn't want to publish their poems/plays under their own names for different reasons.
Have you read Bill Bryson's bio of Shakespeare, Anachronist? It's a very slim volume, because so little is actually known about the playwright's life - but Bryson does do an excellent and very succinct discussion of 'Who wrote Shakespeare'.
ReplyDeleteI also love Jasper Fforde's take on Shakespeare's plays in the Thursday Next series.
Tracy, no I haven't read Bill Bryson's bio and I wish I had. I can imagine how slim the volume is - I've always been rather interested in Shakespeare and I even wrote a small essay on him in my secondary school.
ReplyDeleteJasper Fforde is one ingenious writter and I loved his take on Shakespeare as well, although I suppose you can't call it exactly scientific. ;)