When choosing which Shakespeare sonnet to write this week's assignment on, I immediately went for my favorite. I've read sonnet 130 before and already had a pretty solid interpretation. With that already carved into my mind, the task of choosing another interpretation proved difficult. Alas, I've figured it out! The first interpretation that I'm sure the majority of readers will incur, is that Shakespeare is writing this sonnet about how different his love for his mistress is, because she is not perfect and beautiful, which makes what they have extra special. The second interpretation I conjured up hits more of a non-emotional point. That is, in writing an "anti-petrarchan" sonnet, Shakespeare is able seperate himself from the norm and show that like a less appealing mistress, exploring out-of-the norm can be just as sweet.

Throughout the entire poem, Shakespeare gives great descriptions of the less-than-perfect woman, who happens to be his mistress. I think this fact is significant because a mistress is probably looked down upon more than a spouse or fair lover. Not only is she somewhat of a "dog," but she is also socially shunned. Of course all that seems to be putting this woman down is proved incorrect by the couplet, which says, "And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare,/ As any she belied with false compare" (13-14). Here we get the truth that the speaker is actually in love with this woman despite her unsatisfactory appearance, which shows that Shakespeare can see that all people are still human and are capable of being loved no matter who they are or how bad they look. It is a sound poet that gives endearing features to the speaker, whom we might assume to be Shakespeare himself. I love the lines three and four, which use the opposite colors of red and black to compare certain body parts on a woman. I'm not sure what the rhetoric term for this is, though I'm sure there has to be something about using opposites to compare different thing in two lines. Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly jumped out at me. The lines say, "If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;/If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head." The significance of this is just Shakespeare pointing out the fact that what he's writing about is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect in a love sonnet. An apostrophe is also used here when Shakespeare seems to pose a question to no one who will answer it. The fact that she has dirty, grayish-brown breasts is just something to ponder over. And once you picture it you start to think that the speaker must really be a great guy for still being with his mistress.

My second interpretation is completley different. This sonnet can be taken as a satire on the formal petrarchan form for a couple of reasons. First, it deals with a mistress not a fair lover or mysterious woman, and second, it declares that she is pretty much gross as opposed to a perfect ten. And yet, the really amazing part is that we still enjoy the poem. In fact, I like it much more than I do the love sonnets about how wonderful and perfect the women their speakers pine over are. And it can be argued that Shakespeare is really trying to tell us this. Not just that you can love someone despite their physical faults, but that you can love a sonnet too even when it's not followed in the normal format. For instance, in lines five through six which read, "I have seen roses demasked, red and white,/ But no such roses see I in her cheeks;" these comparisons can also be a metaphor for typical sonnets. Usually beauty is seen in them, but literally there is none in this sonnet. I think you could attribute this metaphor to almost any of the line comparisons. They're all basically saying that the mistress is lacking something, just like Shakespeare's anti-Petrarchan poem does. And all of it can be taken as satire because it makes fun of the unrealistic portrayal of every lady a sonnet writer has written about. It's truly a great poem, as it has such a great capability of forming different interpretations. These are simply the two that seemed most fitting.

Shakespeare's Sonnet 55

Like many sonnets Shakespeare has written, this poem focuses on a theme of a special someone's memory living on forever in his written word. I find it interesting that in many of the poems we have read so far, the authors actually mention that they are conciously writing the sonnet itself. This strikes me as quite odd because I always thought poetry had to be secretive, written especially well, and make a point without knowing about itself. Maybe that doesn't make a lot of sense. It just surprises me when I read a sonnet and it says something like, "Oh, I'm writing this because blah blah blah..." I guess I just wouldn't write one myself about the sonnet itself. But of course, on to the analyzing.

I'll first start with my favorite type of figurative language: Alliteration. This is used in every single line of Sonnet 55. And like always, it is used to point out the key words in a line. For example, the first two lines are: "not marbe, nor the guilded monuments/ Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme." Shakespeare alliterates the two words being compared in each line. Marble and monuments are the main ideas in the first line, which Shakespeare is ultimately comparing to the longevity of his sonnet. The second line alliterates the words princes and powerful which sound like they should go together, but the two words are actually separate for once. A prince should have a lot of power (notice Shakespeare uses the word prince as opposed to king to alliterate with powerful) yet it is the ryhme in his poem that he believes has the most. A poem and the person it is written about does not die until everyone stops reading it. I believe this is what Shakespeare is really trying to get across.

Throughout most of this sonnet, a great deal of comparison gets used. Basically we understand that the sonnet is to outstand anything in the world that is thought to be powerful and/or withstanding. In line five, we get a taste of anastrophe for emphasis on a particular word. It says "When wasteful war shall statues overturn." In using this, Shakespeare exemplifies the word statues as another comparison for what he believes cannot out stand his sonnet. And I must point out, is not only the poem that Shakespeare wants to live on forever, it is the women (or man?!) he speaks about. It is the unnamed women (or man?!) we've heard of in the other works previously read for class. We know this because the person in mentioned in several lines, but I find the couplet at the end the most important, which says, "So, till the judgment that yourself arise,/ You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes (13-14). Here Shakespeare is saying that the love he has for this person will make her/him live on until all people reach Judgement Day, which will take all humans off the earth. As long as there are lovers around they will be reading this sonnet. Shakespeare makes this point in many of his sonnets, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post. I think it's vastly amazing because of the truth it speaks. Who ever he was writing about, even though we don't know exactly who, still exists because we're reading this sonnet still. Not only is it rich with poetic devises, but its theme of the power of words and their everlasting effect is incredible. I happen to be a fan of Shakespeare, and the more I read the more I get from him.

In Sidney's first sonnet of "Astrophil and Stella," it seems the speaker is desperately searching for attention from this woman, whom we are introduced to as "She." The character Astrophil is using his poetry in sonnet form (the original "love poem") to win her over. But it's not just the fact that he is writing a poem that he expects to get her heart. He thinks that if he writes sadly enough and expresses his love to his ultimate desire, she will pity him so much as to give him a chance. The second line says "She might take some pleasure of my pain." This is referring to the pain he is expressing in his poem. Astrophil hopes she'll enjoy his work and take in the emotion with care. I also noticed that this line uses a cliche. We've all heard the words "pleasure" and "pain" put together in one form or another. I'm wondering if this is where it may have started, or if Sydney actually took it from another poet or whoever may have wrote it down first. He doesn't seem like the type who would use cliches like that. The lines and words he writes are very well put and rather witty at times.

By line five, the speaker is feeling without the right words to express his love for Stella on paper. My favorite line: "Oft turning others' leaves, to see if thence would flow" (6). This does several things for me. One, it gives an image of fall leaves in my head. Two, it further supports the fact that the speaker is completely out of ideas to write. And third, it encompasses yet another cliche. Now I'm beginning to think that he has taken these cliches on purpose because this line does not only use another one, but Sidney also is saying that he has looked at "others' leaves." Perhaps this means he is reading the poetry of other men, and used this cliche from one of them. I'm not sure, but if that is the case I think it's very clever.

The last two lines definitely help the poem fall under the categorization of an English sonnet. Since they do rhyme, they are called a couplet. These lines also take a change at the end of the sonnet, one that really sums up the main point. That is, we learn the speaker should simply be looking into his own heart for the words to write his wonderful love sonnet to the woman he pines for. It's also funny that it is his muse telling him this. Of course a muse is used for inspiration. I think it's funny that Astrophil basically gets told by his own muse where to find the inspiration he is looking for rather than just be the inpiration itself. Certainly over all it is a very well written sonnet and I enjoyed the wit and humor quite thoroughly.

WARNING: The first sentence is awful, but I'm not sure how to avoid it.

In Thomas Wyatt's sonnet Madam, withouten many words, the key word is "words." It may sound silly, but this poem actually revolves around the impact of two particular words, each professing the opposite of the other. That is, the speaker is waiting for an outcome based on whether the antagonist's reply is yes or no.

The importance of "words" is that the speaker is only hoping for one of two choices. He asks that the Madame be honest and concise with him so that he may get on with his life depending on which she chooses. What exactly has he asked her? I'm not sure, but my guess is that it was some courtly offer. Perhaps marriage or another "dating" gesture. I'm assuming this because of the last two lines, which are the outcomes of a negative answer: "Ye shall another man obtain,/And I mine own and yours no more" (13-14). Clearly the Madame is to move on to a different "suitor" if she rejects the speaker. In the last line he claims himself, and seperates from the Madame.

The speaker labels this indecisive woman "withouten many words" (1) because she doesn't seem to give him a straight answer. The third and fourth lines say, "And if ye will, then leave your bordes,/And use your wit and show it so." Here the speaker is telling this Madame that if she is to ever speak to him at all, she must leave out the mind-games and state what she is truly thinking on the matter. Basically he wants a straight answer with a choice between the words yes or no. The speaker tries to get the antagonist to at least feel sorry for him as one "that burneth alway" (7) so that he can set his mind at rest. In a sense, he's asking her to at least rip off the bandaide rather than pull it off slowly and painfully without straight answers. He is probably sick of hearing hardly a response (if any at all) from this madame, so he only asks for these words. They are the entire subject and fate of the sonnet because they are the only desire that the speaker has. I feel that this sonnet is really working at one point and Wyatt has made it quite apparent that the meaning of two little words can affect a human in such a deep way.

The last stanza in this sonnet expresses the consequences based on the words the Madame may or may not choose as her answer. With an affirmative confirmation the speaker says he "shall be fain" (9), or happy, in other words. Here we can easily assume this means the Madame will have interest in the protagonist romatically. Otherwise, as I quoted the lines in the first paragraph, she will have to find a different man and the speaker must cuts his ties from her and become his own self again. Readers are left at the end pondering over which of the two words the Madame will finally choose. One or the other makes their fate, which the speaker is very serious about getting at. After all, he's written an entire sonnet over the matter. To put it plain and simple, "words" ('yes' and 'no' in particular) are very significant in this sonnet, and ultimately have the most consequential rolls.

44

Now whenas darkesome night had all displayd

Her coleblacke curtein over brightest skye,

The warlike youthes on dayntie couches layd,

Did chace away sweet sleepe from sluggish eye,

To muse on meanes of hoped victory.

But whenas Morpheus had with leaden mace

Arrested all that courtly company,

Up-rose Duessa from her resting place,

And to the Paynims lodging comes with silent pace.

In this stanza night has befallen the Proud Palace of Queen Lucifera and both our knight and Sans joy are wide awake contemplating each victory over the other. Previously Sans joy had challenged the knight to a duel, but the Queen insisted they wait until morning for it to proceed. Both men agreed and now lie down in their overly lavish couches for the night. Just as the God of sleep makes everyone else in the court fall to bed, Duessa wakes up and goes to speak to Sans joy about his brother Sans foy whom our knight did slay. This is a significant moment because it is the calm before the storm. The knight and Sans joy are mentally preparing for battle and Duessa sneaks away to side with Sans joy. This is the setting up of the battle in the next Canto.

This passage is a contrast of evil (paired with dark) and good (paired with light). Not only is it literally the waiting point before the next significant event occurs, but it also gives some forboding of what will come in the future. The first two lines describe the blackness of night covering the "brightest skye". There are two points here. First Spenser uses personification when he gives life to the knight saying that she "displayd / Her coleblack curtein over brightest skye". Second, I think Spenser uses such vivid and bleak imagery to create a memory in our heads (as readers) for what is soon to come. Here the black night (evil) is completely covering even the brightest light of day (good). I think we're supposed to understand that our knight has many more trials to go through where evil will seem to completely overcome him in deception. Even if he wins the battle, their are darker forces to face.

Spenser uses a lot of alliteration in this passage as well. Adding even more to the first two lines, the letter C is alliterated in "coleblacke curtein". I think this description is not only being highlighted here, but also sounds a certain way. The hard "C" sound reminds me of the word "cold": it's harsh and unwelcoming. Again this forbodes what is to become of the knights journey in the near future. The fourth line in this passage alliterates the "s" sound with the verbs sweet, sleepe, and sluggish. These are all very "innocent-like" words. They are hardly negative and have a relaxed gererality amongst them. The fact that the men are awake and at a loss to these three words shows their lack of innocense. Not only are they lying in an evil sinful place (the Proud Palace --- which also has alliteration for rememberance), but they are contemplating the demise of one another. They keep themselves awake with proud thoughts of victory, which also coincides with the palace in which they stay. Here most everything is evil and sinful. All that is good seems to be floudering out in this passage.

Another literary device I noticed in this particular piece from Spenser, was caesura. For the last time (I promise) I want to use the first two lines of the passage as an example. They have this pause between them, splitting them up so that each will carry its own heavy importance. First the darkness of night comes in, and then the second line comes in with the harsh description of its "coleblacke curtein". The use of the caesura makes each line stand out although they are supposed to be read as one sentence. This occurs again with the description of Morpheus making the rest of the court fall asleep. The first line contains yet another dark description with the two words "leaden mace". The first word has two meanings. Leaden is both something heavy and dragged, and dull, gray, and gloomy (dictionary.com). The double-meaning here is very significant because it gives even more to this specific word. Mace was a "clublike armor-breaking weapon of war" from the Middle Ages (dictionary.com). You can see how these two words together can sound very powerful. But this is only the first line to the seperated sentence. The next line begins with the word "arrested," another powerful choice of diction. Morpheus has not just sprinkled some fairy dust over the people of the palace so that they could drift off into Sleepyland; he's seized all of their company from under them. This sentence is stuctured to capture the reader. It could either be more forboding or perhaps represent the helplessness in deceit the knight has endured so far. He is not always aware of the evils around him, but they occur without the consensus of choice.

I first wanted to point out that this assigned reading has been my favorite so far. It was a fast read, easy to understand, and interesting. It reminds me of Beowulf quite a bit. I know the latter wasn't allegorical, but the general hero story with graphic slaughter scenes was very similar. With the help of the foot notes I was able to catch on to the allagory quite well. There seemed to be obvious contrasts to the "evils" of the Catholic Church and "the truth" which was the Protestant Religion. Our heroic knight's name is indeed "Of Holiness" which easily represents that of a Christian wandering through life searching for more closeness to God. Una, who's name literally is truth, is necessary is Red Crosse's journey. Ultimately in an alligorical way, they need to be together in life because of their representations of Holiness and Truth. The antagonists in this poem are very deceitful and make it their agenda to seperate Holiness and Truth in any way possible.

The first trouble that Red Crosse comes across is with the creature Errour, who represents the Catholic Church itself. In lines 177-78 Spenser writes "Her vomit full of bookes and papers was,/ With loathy frogs and toades, which eyes did lacke". As the footnote, this is a refrence to the Catholic propaganda of books and pamphlets. Knowing this, I've tried to analyze Red Crosse's adventure with Errour even deeper. The creature is first seen in her cave feeding her "thousand yong ones" (131). These young probably represent the followers of the Catholic Church who simply fed on whatever they were given without question. This idea is also supported by the fact that after Red Crosse chops off Errour's head, the offspring drink their mother's blood until they themselves explode. Spenser says that they are "Making her death their life, and eke hurt their good" (225). I found this a very interesting line. With the death of the Catholic church, the followers quickly feed off of whatever is left of their leader in fear of having nothing more to base their religious lives off of. They make a negative thing good for them because they have the freedom to injest as much of the Catholic Church's word as they feel. But of course, they greedily soak up too much and their own lives are destroyed. It's a very interesting allagorical view of Spenser's beliefs and I will probably even go on to finish the rest of the story to find out more.

I will have to agree, this text was rather difficult to read. Actually, it was quite lovely to read, just difficult to understand. The first thing I noticed of course was Langland's use of alliteration. It is obviously his strongest poetic devise in Piers Plowman. It brings more strength to the poem than simple rhyme would have like we read in the Canterbury Tales. Not only do I think it is a much more challenging device to use than rhyme, but it just sounds better. Though it seems a tad over done, I think it adds a lot to the peom. The alliterated words always brought out the most important points. Langland used them to keep our eyes open for key words. Lines 325-26 are alliterated by the sound of the letter L: "Lucifer could not look, the light so blinded him./And those that the Lord loved his light caught away." Interesting how in one line Langland is talking about the Devil and in the second he speaks of God, yet he chooses terms that both start with the letter L. Perhaps Langland wants to believe that Satan and God are one in the same. As in, he does not really believe in the church and considers the two opposites at basically the same level of imagination. Over-analyzation, it may be, but at least it's a shot in a barely lit room.

Something else I noticed in Langland's patterns of alliteration were the frequency of certain sounds. It seemed to me that the sound of a G came up quite often. There are many phrases about being beguiled in the last few pages of Passus 18. In line 360 Langland uses both repetition and alliteration to help guide his main points: "And guile is beguilded and grief has come to his guile." What I take from this is a huge theme of trickery. I'm not exactly sure why, but I can tell you it's very important. Hopefully someone in discussion will be able to take this theme a little further than I can.

I found it very interesting that Langland used the four daughters of Christ (Peace, Righteousness, Mercy, and Truth) in a personified way. (Personification, yet another poetic device.) Truth came across as very calm and laid back to me because she is all-knowing and without worry. She is constantly telling everyone to be "silent" (163, 260). I presume this is both in an attempt to end the argument between the daughters and to claim her position as truth again because she supposedly knows all that really matters. I don't quite understand why they are all fighting, but they do "make up" at the end: "Mercy and Truth have met together, Righteousness and Peace/ have kissed each other" (422-23). Apparently this is a verse from the Bible. It seems just another way that Langland uses allegory in his poem. I am, once again, not sure what the signifance of it is, but I know that it becomes the end of his dream. After this happens it appears that the "good guys" triumph and all is well, yet I get the distinct feeling that Langland did not write this poem merely to point out the power of Jesus against evil. Everything seems more satirical to me, partly because of the personification of the four daughters and the event of Jesus' visit to hell. It just doesn't seem right, especially for a middle English writer because anything other than "The Word" was considered heresey. Maybe Langland was angry at the church and this pushed him to give birth to Piers Plowman.