Love beyond Life and Reason in Shakespeares Sonnet 18 and Sonnet 43 - Essay Example

ENGH 043 059 21 January Love beyond Life and Reason in Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 18” and “Sonnet 43” How can someone prove their love? Nothing they do or say can, but poetry may. Shakespeare expresses the hardships of defining and proving love in two sonnets, “Sonnet 18” and “Sonnet 43.” In “Sonnet 18,” the speaker of the poem struggles to describe his love. In “Sonnet 43,” he gets sick because of this love, a sickness with no cure. Love cannot be fully understood because it is beyond life and reason, while too much of it destroys reason. Love cannot be easily explained in ordinary language. In “Sonnet 18,” Shakespeare says: “Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?/Thou art more lovely and more temperate” (1-2). The speaker of the poem cannot find the right words to capture the beauty of his beloved because the latter is lovelier than summer. “Sonnet 43” tries to understand love, but it cannot, especially when it is compared to a fever that goes on and on: “My love is as a fever longing still,/For that which longer nurseth the disease” (1-2). Shakespeare asserts that love can be so intrusive to the human senses that it cannot be simply understood by ordinary logic. Language is not enough to express love. Shakespeare uses “Sonnet 18” to explore the limitations of human words to say the words of love. He says: “And summer's lease hath all too short a date” (4). Summer is too short to understand what love is. It may be beautiful, but it lacks the essence of love that the speaker wants to tell his audience. “Sonnet 43” seeks to control love, but as a disease, it troubles the whole body. Shakespeare seems to be stating that showing love is so mind-boggling that it can make anyone sick for a long time: “Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill,/The uncertain sickly appetite to please” (3-4). With love as a sickness, love is even more difficult to show. There is no way to demonstrate true love, but writing about it may be enough to prove it exists. Sonnet 18 finds a way of confirming the eternity of his love: “So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,/So long lives this, and this gives life to thee” (13-14). Shakespeare believes that poetry proves that true love exists. Words that people read, speak, and hear can be shared for generations. Through poetry, everlasting love can be achieved. Too much love destroys reason. “Sonnet 18” is being ambiguous already because of the contradictions of loving: “But thy eternal summer shall not fade” (9). Summer is not eternal, but the speaker is saying that his kind of summer will last. Extending love has its negative effects. “Sonnet 43” says that reason has left already: “Past cure I am, now Reason is past care,/And frantic-mad with evermore unrest” (9-10). Loving too much has its consequences; it kills people’s ability to think rationally. The result is restlessness, a kind of frantic madness that has no end, like an eternal summer, but this time, darker and too warm. Shakespeare is showing an attitude to love that is filled with wonder and caution. On the one hand, love is beautiful, so lovely that words and reason are not enough. “Sonnet 18” says that human life is not even sufficient to prove love. On the other hand, “Sonnet 43” is warning people about the dangers of too much love. Love can ruin human logic. It can make people forget who they are and what is right and wrong. Shakespeare leaves a strong message about the wonders and perils of love: love is magically wonderful, but it can be toxic too. Works Cited Shakespeare, William. Sonnet 18. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. . ---. Sonnet 43. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. < http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1041/pg1041.html>. Name Instructor ENGH 043 059 21 January 2013 Moral Integrity across Occupations in “The Prologue” of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales The media, especially the news, tend to emphasize the crooked side of humanity by reporting about people who clearly have no integrity- the corrupt politician, the sleazy businessman, and the ungodly priest, among many others. Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales shows integrity and its ambiguities too, which are present up to now. In “The Prologue,” integrity is not neatly defined, but it gives good examples of what having integrity means for different occupations through examples and narration, and the issue of integrity continues to be important to modern society because of the difficulty in defining and living by it. People of integrity are not perfect, but they tend to have a clear knowledge of who they are and what they are supposed to be doing in society. Chaucer describes people who are aware of their roles and responsibilities in life. The Knight, for instance, is a model of a perfect soldier for he “…loved chivalry, Truth, honour, freedom and all courtesy” (Chaucer 46). He has won many wars, which is the crown of his mission in life as a soldier. The Lawyer also does his job well: “Discreet he was, and of great reverence; At least he seemed so, his words were so wise” (Chaucer 312-313). He knows the laws and cases of the land, and for that, he is able to execute his functions with justice. Butts and Rich define integrity as “maintenance of identity” (54), and these examples are doing what is expected of their identity. These are people, who might have done something wrong in their lives, but in their jobs, they strive to do what is right, and that is moral integrity. Integrity means having a strong moral compass and following it, no matter how hard it may be, and especially, when it is hard to do so. “The Prologue,” however, shows familiar characters- people who have defied integrity. The Monk, for instance, is supposed to live a simple life offered to God and to helping humanity. Instead, he helps himself too generously. The Friar is no better. He should be a man of poverty, but he lives like the Monk. He keeps women and he uses the Church’s money for his own gain. The Wife of Bath, however, is not pretending to be a saint. She knows who she is, and her five husbands must know her to some extent too. These people might have no integrity, but they are representatives of reality. People can do the opposite of what is expected of them. Integrity is hard to achieve, and it is something that some people, even the most “respectable” ones, cannot attain. The Monk and the Friar are the opposite of their supposed characters. They have a lavish life, and it seems that they do not care for their real calling. They are alive up to now. They are cops who are indifferent to their jobs, or worse, corrupt and involved in crimes. Some doctors currently are not sincerely concerned of the health of their patients. They are more focused on getting paid than healing the sick. Everywhere, corruption persists. People are far from having integrity. “The Prologue” explores the issue of integrity. People who are supposed to be noble or credible are not always so. Holy men are materialistic, while merchants tend to overcharge their customers. Most of them take advantage of others, especially the weak-minded and the poor. Integrity is shown in the exterior, but inside, it is a sham. Modern society should strive to have more integrity in life by doing their jobs well and having a strong moral compass in life. Works Cited Butts, Janie B., and Karen Rich. Nursing Ethics: Across the Curriculum and into Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2005. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. Google Books. Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales: The Prologue. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. < http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/CT-prolog-para.html>. Read More