The
Concept of Love: Shakespeare's definition of love and how it is
presented in his sonnets
William Shakespeare (1564-1616) is
regarded as a literary great, recognised for his many plays that
still feature in many educational syllabuses across the world. He has
also received adulation for his poetry and sonnets. This essay works
on the basis that there are two individual specifications of love;
lust and true love. Definitions of these loves can be found embedded
within several sonnets and will be explored further on in this essay.
Other types of love could also be distinguished and analysed within
Shakespeare's collection of sonnets, however, for the purposes of
this composition to achieve in depth analysis, the two most
prevailing types of love will be focussed on. This essay will seek to
determine Shakespeare's definition of both types of love and then
also demonstrate how literary techniques are used to illustrate them.
The use of pathetic fallacy will be the key allegory analysed that is
used to help further the understanding of the two differing types of
love and furthermore, distinguish between them.
The Shakespearean sonnet, more broadly
classed as an Elizabethan sonnet, first appeared in the latter years
of the sixteenth century. It is thought to have been brought to
England by Sir Thomas Wyatt (1503-1542), a young courtier of Henry
VIII, who spent considerable time in Italy and France, where the
Petrarchan sonnet has it's origins. As poetry and literature evolved,
select writers and poets distanced themselves from political and
religious poetry and instead, love became the key focus of their
works, as “the supreme and inalienable individual experience, love
necessarily became the central theme of literature during this
epoch”. It was also considered that “the leading poets writing in
the fifteen-nineties and after
were attempting to evolve a treatment of love that accorded with the
vision of their time”.1
Shakespeare is thought to have written his sonnets in the early to
mid 1590s. However, the collection of sonnets went unpublished until
1609.2
It is thought that, due to the sensitive, personal and deeply
emotional content, sonnets were initially circulated amongst friends
and select literary groups. The Shakespearean sonnet has strict
regulations, in style and rhyming scheme. It consists of two
sections, the octave and sestet which comprise of three quatrains and
a final couplet. In every sonnet, it is a necessity that the first
quatrain proposes a subject;
the second develops it.
There is then a change in the perspective or notion and the third
quatrain further builds upon this and the final couplet will then act
as a conclusion, offering a resolution. It is necessary to understand
the conflicting and changing perspectives within a sonnet so an
extract is not taken out of context or considered a final emotion or
idea of the speaker.
For this essay, many commentaries of
Shakespeare's sonnets have been considered, however, the primary
commentary utilised is the New Cambridge Shakespeare.3
Another text vital to the initial inspiration of the thesis of this
composition is The Four Loves
by C.S. Lewis. To proceed, it is necessary to outline the contents of
this book and Lewis' definition of love. The book examines love and
distinguishes four different varieties; Affection, Friendship, Eros
and Charity.4
Lewis' idea of Eros establishes this essay's notion of true love and
the word Eros will be used from this point onwards. It is defined as
“that state which we call “being in love”; or, if you prefer,
that kind of love which lovers are “in”.”.5
Lewis also makes a clear distinction between lust and Eros. Lust,
which is referred to in The
Four Loves as 'Venus' is
defined as “the animal or carnally sexual element within Eros...
what is sexual not in some cryptic or rarified sense... but in a
perfectly obvious sense... what could be proved to be sexual by the
simplest observations”.6
It is worth to note that Lewis also states that Venus can be found
outside of a state of Eros. Furthering his definition of Eros and
also distinguishing the difference between Eros and lust, Lewis
presents the following anecdote.
“A man in this state [Eros] really
hasn't leisure to think of sex. He is too busy thinking of a person.
The fact she is a woman is far less important than the fact she is
herself. He is full of desire, but the desire may not be sexually
toned. If you asked him what we wanted, the true reply would often
be, “To go on thinking of her.” He is love's contemplative.”7
Whilst Lewis' definitions of lust and
Eros can give an understanding of love, it is necessary to also
consider the Shakespearean definitions of both variations of love.
Whilst lacking the simplicity of Lewis' definitions, it is possible
to interpret Shakespeare's definition of love through the examination
of his sonnets. Firstly, Shakespeare's definition of Eros will be
identified and will be done using sonnet 116.8
The definition is easier found 'inbetween the lines', as the sonnet
proposes what true love is not, rather than what it is. It can be
interpreted that Eros is solid and unchanging, in the first quatrain
“love is not love, Which alters when it alteration finds”. The
use of the word 'alteration' allows the speaker to encompass all
tribulations and trials that two lovers may encounter; time, events,
lust or perhaps even death.9
This notion is continued into the third quatrain, “Love alters not
with his brief hours and weeks, But it bears out even to the edge of
doom”. 'Doom' could be considered death but could also include a
lover's worst fears and the most unfortunate of circumstances; as
what is considered doom can be individual. In describing what Eros is
not rather than what it is, the emotion, or force, becomes
transcendent. Words in a human language simply cannot describe the
true definItions of Eros as love surpasses linguistic ability. It is
only in the second quatrain in which Shakespeare describes what love
is, “it is an ever-fixed mark... whose worth's unknown”, which
reinforces the understanding Eros is transcendent, beyond human
understanding as it's worth is “unknown” but it's existence is
not doubted. “An ever-fixed mark” suggests the notion Eros is a
power or force that is beyond any form of measurement and breaches
the laws of time and space and leaves a mark that is eternal. J.B.
Leishman, senior lecturer at the University of Oxford, commented that
in Shakespeare's sonnets, “love appears as the Defier of Time”.10
Shakespeare's definition of lust,
however, is vastly different to his idea of Eros. The sonnet that
shall be used to determine the definition is sonnet 129.11
It appears lust is considered quite opposite to Eros. “Lust is
perjured, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame, Savage, extreme, rude,
cruel, not to trust”, unlike Eros, the sonnet is largely about what
lust is rather than what it is not. Such contrasting use of
description between the two loves makes lust appear a instinctual,
basic and inferior emotion, easily obtainable with little to no
worth. It is entirely negative and can produce nothing of beauty.
Despite being deemed a loathsome emotion, there is no doubt of it's
strength or power as a force to control one's mind and
metaphorically, lead one down an unsavoury and immoral path. This is
shown and eloquently described in the final couplet, “All this
world well knows, yet none knows well, To shun the heaven that leads
men to this hell”. It can be assumed that the sonnet is concerning
immoral sex and for the purposes of this essay, will be considered as
adulterous sex or premarital sex. Describing the act, and the emotion
of lust, as “heaven”, allows the reader to understand the appeal
of lust and how the anticipation of the act can be so powerful, it
can influence one's actions. However, it is shown as short lived as
only a few short words later, the heaven has turned into hell, like
the immoral sex and lust that is “Enjoyed no sooner but despised
straight”.
The contrast of these definitions is so
vast and the key difference to be noted is the definition of what
Eros is largely distinguished from what the sonnet describes it is
not, yet the sonnet this essay used to define lust does not fall
short in vast description of what lust is. It enforces Eros s
transcendent and that is has the ability to transgress human
capabilities so a human cannot truly define it, it is above the
capacity of the human brain and greater than human knowledge can
comprehend. Yet lust is one of the basest emotions which can only
lead to negativity. This differs to Lewis' definition of lust, or
Venus, as he purposely separates any judgmental connotations with
lust. Therefore, a lot of emotion is removed and lust becomes
definedas simple sexual desire rather than detailing the negative
effects this sexual desire can have on man. Another factor worth
noting when considering Shakespeare's definition of both lust and
Eros and also the following analyses of pathetic fallacy is that the
definitions cannot be found until the latter sonnets of the
collection. Descriptions of love and lust are observable from the
first sonnet, yet the first pallable definition is not found until
much later in the collection. There is no proof Shakespeare wrote the
sonnetx in this order, however, if he did it could be supposed that
whilst he was aware of these emotions and loves, it took significant
exploration of them and a lot of time to be able to comprehend and
define lust and true love.
Using these definitions of lust and
Eros, it is now possible to look at how pathetic fallacy is used in
Shakespeare's sonnets to demonstrate these types of love. The sonnets
that will be evaluated are 2 and 18.
Firstly, the use of the weather a
reflection of mood in sonnet 18 will be examined to see how it
represents Eros.12
The sonnet starts “shall I compare thee to a summer's day?”. By
using the phrase 'summer's day', the reader instantly has thoughts in
their mind of all the wonderful and positive things associated with
this time of year; the warm sunshine, the pleasant smells, the long
and light days and the beautiful nature that comes into bloom at that
time of year. It has been commented that “[sonnet] 18 plays on the
proverbial comparative formula “as good as one shall see in a
summer's day', meaning “as good as the best there is””.13
This reflects the feelings the speaker has towards to recipient of
his love and shows the beauty and warmth of his affections. Nature is
also considered be a gift from God, and with the following line “Thou
art more lovely and more temperate”, the love, or Eros, the speaker
feels is likened to be better than what some consider the most
beautiful scenario on the planet. This affirms the interpretation
that Shakespeare feels Eros is transcendent. This notion is continued
throughout the sonnet, once again using nature as a reference point,
“Rough winds shake the darling buds of May...but thy eternal summer
will never fade”. Summer appears fragile and breakable, a sensitive
form of beauty. However, the 'eternal summer', possibly meaning the
internal emotions and feelings of Eros that the speaker has for his
love, will never fade and will span time and space. There is no a
force strong enough to defeat it, once again suggesting Eros is an
emotion that surpasses this world and human understanding. It is to
be considered a force that is incomprehensible and unbreakable, never
wavering or losing power. Eros lasts for eternity even though a
human's life span is only a matter of decades.
Weather is also used to portray lust,
this essay will focus on how this is done in sonnet 2.14
The sonnet starts “When forty winters shall besiege thy brow... Thy
youth's proud livery.. will be a tottered weed of small worth”.
Completely opposing the Eros imagery of summer, Shakespeare chose to
use the imagery of winter. Winter days are short and the majority of
the day is filled with darkness, only a few hours of light in which
to see. This could symoblise the dangers of lust, as said in the
definition, it is no sooner enjoyed as it is despised;
a winter's day no sooner
has light as there is darkness yet again. Winter also often brings
harsh conditions and cold weather which is unpleasant and makes the
reader associate lust with such negativity. By writing 'forty'
winters, these unpleasantries are amplified as it seems they are
never ending... there is no mention of the summers in between but
only the harsh, cold winters. Forty simply could mean forty, however,
it is suggested that “[forty is] an indefinite number frequently
used to suggest what the Elizabethan's thought as the dangerously
wrong side of the middle ages”15.
To be taken in context, the imagery of forty winters is used to show
that all the person has is good looks, and in time, they will fade
and this person will be nothing, as pathetic and despised as a lowly
weed, meaning either a tattered rag of clothing or an unwanted plant
growth that is unattractive and kills the flowers it surrounds.
Perhaps it could be the person spoken of is so beautiful and
attractive, he inspires many people to lust after him and lead them
into 'hell', as described in Shakespeare's definition of lust, but
the speaker seeks to remind him that his sinful ways will bring him
no happiness as lust is short lived and can and will fade, unlike
Eros which is eternal and never changing.
A suggestion for further research could
be analysing how pathetic fallacy develops throughout the sonnets; as
this essay has previously mentioned, the definitions of Eros and lust
came in the latter sonnets of the collection so potentially, pathetic
fallacy could be used differently as Shakespeare's understanding of
the loves deepen. Symbolism and the use of colours could also be
reviewed and analysed to understand further ways in which Shakespeare
portrays both types of love. Different variations of love presented
in Shakespeare's sonnets could also be identified and analysed,
referring closely to Lewis' The
Four Loves and
perhaps also the Allegory
of Love.
Potentially,
the thesis of this composition could be extended to other
Shakespearean works such as his plays, specifically Romeo and Juliet
and Hamlet.
After careful consideration and in
depth analysis, it is clear there are two types of love shown within
Shakespeare's sonnets. The first, Eros, is a love so strong that it
is unchanging and transcendent. There is nothing on this Earth that
can measure it's beauty. Lust is defined as quite the opposite,
whilst still undeniably powerful, it is an awful and despised emotion
that can only lead to hell, whether that be a literal hell or
metaphorical hell. Shakespeare successfully uses nature and pathetic
fallacy to demonstrate his definitions of both Eros and lust, Eros
being compared to bright summers and lust to dark winters. Love is
complex emotion with many different variants, but it could be argued
that the two most prevailing variants of love throughout the history
of human civilisation are that which has been detailed in this
composition.
2761 words
Bibliography
Bath,
Mike, and Tom Furniss, Reading
Poetry: An Introduction (2nd Edition),
2nd edn (Harlow: Longman Pub Group, 2007)
Bennett,
Andrew, and Nicholas Royle, An
Introduction to Literature Criticism and Theory (4th Edition),
4th edn (Harlow, U.K.: Pearson/Longman, 2009)
Bradbrook, M.C C., Shakespeare
and Elizabethan Poetry Study of His Earlier Work in Relation to the
Poetry of the Time (United
Kingdom: Penguin Books, 1965)
Cunliffe,
Richard John, A New
Shakespearean Dictionary
(Norwood, PA: Norwood Editions, 1977)
Felperin,
Howard, Shakespearian Romance
(United States: Princeton University Press, 1972)
Leishman,
J. B., Themes and Variations
in Shakespeare’s Sonnets (Routledge Library Editions: Shakespeare)
(London: Routledge, 2005)
Lever,
J. W., The Elizabethan Love
Sonnet, 2nd edn (London:
Methuen & Co, 1966)
Lewis,
C. S., The Four Loves
(London: Collins, 1987)
Lewis,
C S, The Allegory of Love: A
Study in Medieval Tradition
(London: Oxford University Press, 1936)
Schiffer,
James, ed., Shakespeare’s
Sonnets: Critical Essays (Shakespeare Criticism, 20)
(New York, NY: Garland Publishing, 2000)
Shakespeare,
William, and Stephen Orgel, The
Sonnets, ed. by Gwynne
Blakemore Evans (CAMBRIDGE: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Shakespeare,
William, Shakespeare’s
Sonnets (Arden Shakespeare, Third Series Revised),
ed. by Katherine Duncan-Jones (London: Thomson Learning, 2010)
Shakespeare,
William, A New Variorum
Edition of Shakespeare The Sonnets,
ed. by Hyder Edward Rollins (Philadelphia, USA: George Banta
Publishing Company, 1944)
Stallworthy,
Jon, Margaret Ferguson, and Mary Jo Salter, eds., The
Norton Anthology of Poetry,
5th edn (New York: Norton, W. W. & Company, 2005)
2
Bradbrook,
M.C C., Shakespeare
and Elizabethan Poetry Study of His Earlier Work in Relation to the
Poetry of the Time
(United Kingdom: Penguin Books, 1965), p141
3
Shakespeare, William, and Stephen Orgel, The
Sonnets,
ed. by Gwynne Blakemore Evans (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006)
10
Leishman, J. B., Themes
and Variations in Shakespeare’s Sonnets (Routledge Library
Editions: Shakespeare)
(London: Routledge, 2005), p102
