Comparing Love Sonnets: Shakespeare and Wroth - Essay Example

Comparing Love Sonnets – Shakespeare and Wroth Many modern conceptions of poetry build upon an assumption that good poetry is built upon immediate emotions. The perception is that only that poetry that comes directly from the heart constitutes a true expression of emotion. This type of thinking leads to an assumption that the poetry of Shakespeare and his contemporaries must also have been the result of sudden, passionate emotion. “The poetry was not the spontaneous outpouring of feelings which some modern readers still (wrongly) assume poetry should be. It was in fact written very much within the parameters of Petrarchan convention, in which an idealistic female was both the cause of the male lovers sorrows, leading to his anguished endurance of extremes of emotion, and at the same time, became the moral dynamic to lead to his spiritual improvement. The trick for the poets following Petrarch was to reinvigorate those conventions with a distinct life of their own, a voice characteristic of the poet himself.” In other words, the poetry was designed to express extreme emotion while at the same time demonstrate how that emotion led to a higher spiritual awareness as it was understood by the particular poet. In the cases of William Shakespeare and Lady Mary Wroth, this was accomplished through clever manipulation of the dictates of the sonnet. An analysis of the forms and structure of their poetry, as well as an overall look at the content of their poems, reveals several differences based upon meter, rhyme scheme, format and influences as will be demonstrated through a look at Shakespeare’s third sonnet and Wroth’s second verse of “Pamphilia to Amphilanthus.” The sonnet is generally defined as a poem consisting of exactly fourteen lines following one of several specific sets of rhyme-schemes and in iambic pentameter. In this, both Shakespeare’s third sonnet and Wroth’s “Pamphilia to Amphilanthus #2” follow convention. Similar meter can be found in the first lines of each poem: “Yet is there hope, then Love but play thy part” (Wroth: 1); “Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest” (Shakespeare: 1) in which the first stressed syllable can be seen to fall on the first syllable of the line. Likewise, a metrical similarity exists between “Remember well thy selfe, and think on me” (Wroth: 2) and “For where is she so fair whose uneared womb” (Shakespeare: 5). Here, the stress falls naturally upon the second syllable of each line, changing the beat of the poem just slightly. However, the two poems differ in where these changes in meter take place. For Wroth, the changes occur on an alternating basis throughout the poem until the final lines, where this pattern is broken in the lines “Will you your servant leave: thinke but on this, / Who weares Love’s Crowne, must not doe so amisse” (Wroth: 12-13). Shakespeare’s metrical pattern established in the first line – “Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest”, in which the stress is placed on the first syllable – is repeated in line 2, however, the remainder of his lines generally begin with an unstressed syllable. While he wasn’t the individual to bring the Petrarchan sonnet form to England, Shakespeare became known as the most adept of the form that was eventually adopted and became the most popular form of that era (“Poetic Form”, 2007). While Petrarch’s sonnets took on a rhyme scheme of abba abba cde cde or abba abba cdcdcd, Shakespearean sonnets, including the third sonnet, follow the pattern abab cdcd efef gg. In this particular sonnet, though, the final couplet follows the rhyme scheme of the third quatrain: “Thou art thy mother’s glass and she in thee / Calls back the lovely April of her prime, / So thou through windows of thine age shalt see, / Despite of wrinkles this thy golden time. / But if thou live remembered not to be, / Die single and thine image dies with thee” (Shakespeare: 9-14). As can be seen, the rhyme scheme would thus look more like efef ee. Just as the Shakespearean pattern worked its way out of the Petrarchan translations, Wroth’s rhyme scheme is also based upon an English modification, this time originated by Spenser who had been working with the already modified Shakespearean concepts. Within this context, though, Wroth, like Shakespeare, allow it’s own small conversion as well. While the Spenserian pattern is defined as abab bcbc cdcd ee, Wroth’s pattern is such: abab bcbc cc deed. Like Shakespeare, rather than introducing yet another rhyming phoneme into her work, she repeats the sounds of earlier quatrains within later ones so it looks more like abab baba cc deed: “Watch but my sleepe, if I take any rest, / For thought of you, my spirit is so distrest, / As, pale and famish’d, I for mercy cry, / Will you your servant leave: thinke but on this, / Who weares Love’s Crowne, must not doe so amisse / But seeke their good, who on thy force do lye” (9-14). Petrarch’s pattern was modified to fit English concepts not only in terms of rhyme patterns within the normal range of lingual phonemes, but also in terms of theme development. A common feature of the sonnet is the concept of a turning point within the poem’s theme. “The sonnet can be thematically divided into two sections: the first presents the theme, raises an issue or doubt, and the second part answers the question, resolves the problem or drives home the poem’s point” (McLaughlin, 1999). In the Petrarchan ideal, this turning occurs at the end of the octave, the first eight lines, and then is concluded or more clearly defined throughout the sestet, the final six lines. In the Shakespearean tradition, this theme is broken down a little more. Here, the sonnet is broken down into three quatrains which each work to develop a portion of an idea and a final heroic couplet that serves to conclude it. This is done in the third sonnet as Shakespeare first informs presumably a young person that now, while he is healthy and young, is the time that he should begin having children or else he risks dishonoring the mothers who have worked to bring him to the world. In the second quatrain, he indicates it is the primary purpose of women and men to procreate or else there is no reason for their existence. The third quatrain recalls the aspect of the mother, but puts it now in terms of the young person growing old and having someone to remind him or her of what they used to be. Finally, the ending couplet promises “thine image dies with thee” should the young person fail to have children. Like Shakespeare, Wroth’s poem can be broken down into three quatrains and a final couplet, yet the form remains somewhat altered from the slightly earlier tradition. In her poem, the woman pleads with Love to enter the spirit of the object of her affections with the first quatrain. The second quatrain further pleads that this spirit of love will not only recognize the love she has for him, but also that she will gain his pity and he will then forget any idea of other women. The third quatrain further develops this theme of the suffering lover as she illuminates the various sufferings she’s endured in honor of love. The poem ends with an injunction to the spirit of Love that it has a responsibility to sustain those who depend upon it. So, while Shakespeare’s poem can be seen to be divided into relatively three distinct quatrains and a couplet, Wroth’s poem seems more integrated, with the shifts between quatrains being little more than a bit deeper development or a very subtle nuance of the previous topic with the quatrain being but a natural outcome of what has come before. There are many clues within these two poems, as can be seen through an analysis of their structure and content, which indicate where the poems were originally produced and received. That each poem contains the modified rhyme scheme that was introduced in Britain late in the sixteenth century, for instance, places them both as having been written within this country. However, the structural differences between the two indicate not only a difference in years, but also in specific locations, or perhaps a better term would be to say audience. Wroth’s use of the Spenserian form places her style slightly later than Shakespeare’s as the Spenserian form was developed as a modification of the Shakespearean sonnet. Her willingness to experiment with the prescribed rhyme scheme also indicates a transition period between one form and the other in which these details were being worked out. In addition, the content of each poem reflects a widely different audience. While Wroth was closer to the court, as evidenced in her traditionally romantic choice of subject, Shakespeare was more concerned with the arguably more respectable business of raising a family. As a noble woman, Wroth would not have been expected to cover weighty subjects while Shakespeare, as a playwright, had reason to foster the idea that he was not completely corrupting the general public. While each poet worked within a common language, utilizing a similar formal old-fashioned lexicon and working within the same general social context, they each manage to express themselves in unique ways that at once identify them and render their poetry more universally understandable. For example, instead of asking love to burn away any lustful thoughts her love might have for other woman, Wroth begs for flames “Exciling thoughts, that touch Inconstancy, / Or those which waste not in the constant Art” (7-8). Instead of speaking directly to the individual for whom she holds this burning love, she begs the spirit of Love to intercede for her, allowing the entire poem to be a plea to it rather than the man of her affections. Shakespeare also backs away from his subject somewhat, allowing his address to take on a more objective note as he argues that the young person will someday want a mirror of himself as he was when young just as his parents currently have of them. Like Wroth, he doesn’t phrase things in quite the same way one might otherwise expect. For instance, rather than telling the boy that his refusal to have children might keep him pretty and young a little longer but will also break the family lineage, Shakespeare says “… if now thou not renewest, / Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother” (3-4). His choice of the word ‘beguile’, with its double meaning of charm and fool, further serves to illustrate his mastery of the language as well as create an aura of the exotic or mysterious, thereby introducing a thrill to the lines that transcends ordinary speech. Each poem also reveals common influences in terms of the ideologies and concepts of the period. For example, there are Ovidian overtones in Shakespeare’s sonnet, such as the concept that the young person will be able to survive death by leaving a part of his spirit in the form of a child to whom he might also take comfort while he’s living as a mirror to his own younger self. There are some Ovidian hints in Wroth’s sonnet, particularly in the concept of allowing her flames to burst within her love’s heart, burning away all thoughts of others, thereby consuming him much as Petrarch’s Ovidian-inspired Laura controlled him (“Petrarch’s”, 2007). The Petrarchan idea of an all-consuming love is also echoed in this poem as Wroth describes the restless ‘symptoms’ of her love for this other. She also exhibits a stoic influence in her conviction that the sense of love she is feeling is so strong that it must be the truth, regardless of her cognitive impressions of the relationship. “Nothing is true save sense impressions, and therefore the criterion of truth must lie in sensation itself” (“Stoicism”, 2006). Countering this culture, Shakespeare’s sonnet takes on a Neo-Platonic interest in procreation as its central theme with its interest in immortality. While Shakespeare and Wroth are contemporaries working from the same language, wealth of tradition, cultural influences and exposition format, an analysis of the structure and content of their poetry indeed demonstrates a vast difference between their methods of expression. Although each wrote sonnets conforming to the 14-line iambic pentameter standard prescribed, as well as the three quatrain/couplet concept that had been developed in England based upon Petrarch’s innovations, each managed to make slight alterations in their writings so as to distinguish it as their own, primarily in terms of their modifications to the rhyme scheme and in their specific use of stressed or unstressed lines of iambic pentameter to control the flow of the poem. The way in which the quatrains are connected further illustrates differences between the two writers and the traditions to which they held as Shakespeare’s demonstrate clear transitions between ideas while Wroth’s examines more subtle nuances of her argument. The content of each writer’s poem also demonstrates clear differences in audiences as Shakespeare illustrates more conservative values, perhaps as a means of protecting his own reputation while Wroth is free to play with more traditionally romanticized ideas as a Lady of the court. The difference in poetic effects is finally seen to lie partially in the influences and ideologies from which each artist pulls in order to fine tune their craft. References McLaughlin, Damon. (23 August 1999). “Sonnet.” Craft of Poetry. Available 27 March 2007 from “Poetic Forms: Sonnets.” (2007). Poets.org. Available 27 March 2007 from “Petrarch’s and Shakespeare’s Sonnets.” (2007). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available 28 March 2007 from “Stoicism.” (2006). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available 28 March 2007 from < http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/stoicism.htm> Read More