General introduction: What is so special about the sonnet?
For Wordsworth it was a way into the inner most workings of the poet:
SCORN not the Sonnet; Critic, you have frown'd,
Mindless of its just honours; with this key
Shakespeare unlock'd his heart; the melody
Of this small lute gave ease to Petrarch's wound;
A thousand times this pipe did Tasso sound;
With it Camöens sooth'd an exile's grief;
The Sonnet glitter'd a gay myrtle leaf
Amid the cypress with which Dante crown'd
His visionary brow: a glow-worm lamp,
It cheer'd mild Spenser, call'd from Faery-land
To struggle through dark ways; and when a damp
Fell round the path of Milton, in his hand
The Thing became a trumpet; whence he blew
Soul-animating strains—alas, too few!
William Wordsworth,
Poetical Works, 1827
Browning though felt that this view undermined the way that WS always managed so well to efface his own personality from his work:
'With this same key Shakespeare unlocked his heart, once more! Did Shakespeare? If so, the less Shakespeare he!' - Robert Browning
For others, the key is in the form ‘…is it not delightful, to see much excellently ordred in a small roome, or little gallantly disposed and made to fill up a space of like capacitie, in such sort, that the one would not appear so beautiful in a larger circuit, nor the other do well in a less.’ Samuel Daniel:
Poems and a Defence of Rhyme ed A C Sprague, 1950)
As Bate points out, WS is not the only elusive voice - Giles Fletcher in his preface to
Licia also plays with the idea: 'I did it only to try my humour: and for the matter of love, it may be I am so devoted to some one, into whose hands these may light by chance, that she may say which thou sayest (that surely he is in love), which if she so, then have I the full recompense of my labour, and the poems have dealt sufficiently with the discharge of their own duty.' In other words, it is all about the special structure and form of the sonnet – the 'conceit' – he deliberately stays vague on the possible personal nature of the content.
How should a sonnet be studied?
There have been various approaches to studying sonnets – as many probably as there have been for other kinds of literature, but the question needs to be asked as it affects our understanding. My approach is a sort of historical-formalist one, meaning that while some historical and literary context is obviously useful it should be both relevant and wholly reliable (i.e. not constructing a convenient narrative/suggesting evidence for biography with factual support outside the sonnet). What matters most is the poem – close reading is everything, and understanding the thematic preoccupations of the sonneteers in general and WS in particular, as well as at least having a grasp of the extent of rhetorical devices used is essential.
Part One: a brief history and summary of the sonnet form
Giacomo da Lentini (1188-1240) is also known as il Notaio, as he was a notary in the court of the Sicilian king and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250) - he was an integral part of the Sicilian School and is said to have invented the sonnet in the C12.
He was influenced by both the Provencal troubadour tradition and Sicilian peasant songs. From the former came the inverse relationships of courtly love, from the latter came the form - the strambotto –8 lines with the rhyming form (abababab), to which da Lentini added the sestet (cdcdcd or cdecde) to produce a new poetic form. There are many theories as to why he added six lines in particular, and it may be related to the ideas of harmonic proportion (Plato) and the Golden Section/Mean (Pythagoras). However, Levin points out that ratio of 8:5 would be a true approximation of the Golden Section and so considers it more likely that da Lentini, in creating this top heavy, asymmetrical form with this principle in mind, needed a sixth line in order to balance out the rhyme. It is probably relevant, then, that Frederick took a particular interest in the work of Fibonacci and anyone interested in this should look at Levin.
Guittone d’Arezzo (1230-1294) was at the heart of the Tuscan school of poetry and, despite criticism from Dante, has also now been credited with developing the form. He wrote 246 sonnets on all sorts of subjects, not just love.
Dante d’Alghieri (1265-1321) The term ‘sonnetto’ (‘little sound’) and its equivalent ‘sonito’ was first used by Dante when he distinguished between poetry to be sung and that to be read, and he wrote what is thought to be the first sonnet sequence in his work
La Vita Nuova (1295) which contained 25 sonnets to his beloved Beatrice. It was a work of prose and poetry in which Dante provided commentaries to the sonnets.
To every captive soul and gentle heart
Unto whose sight may come the present word,
That they thereof to me their thoughts impart,
Be greeting in Love’s name, who is their Lord.
Now of those hours wellnigh one third had gone
What time doth every star appear most bright,
When on a sudden Love before me shone,
Remembrance of whose nature gives me fright.
Joyful to me seemed Love, and he was keeping
My heart within his hands, while on his arm
He held my lady, covered o’er, and sleeping.
Then waking her, he with this flaming heart
Did humble feed her fearful of some harm.
Thereon I saw him thence in tears depart.
This sonnet is divided into two parts. In the first part I offer greeting, and ask for a reply; in the second I signify to what the reply is to be made. The second part begins here: “Now of.”
To this sonnet reply was made by many, and of diverse opinions. Among those who replied to it was he whom I call first of my friends, and he then wrote a sonnet which begins, “All worth, in my opinion, thou hast seen.” And this was, as it were, the beginning of the friendship between him and me, when he knew that I was he who had sent it to him.
The true meaning of this dream was not then seen by any one, but now it is plain to the simplest.
Dante: La Vita Nuova (1295)
From The New Life of Dante Alighieri, translated by Charles Eliot Norton; Houghton, Mifflin and Company; Boston and New York; 1896; pp. 1-22.
This sonnet is of particular interest to scholars in being the earliest extant example of Dante's work written probably when he was only 19 or 20 years old. It tells of a dream that he meeting Beatrice – she was married now and so the unobtainable object of his desire. Look at the rhyming scheme – it may be that this has suffered in the English translation but it is clearly set in the octave and then possibly not as formed in the second part – also note how Dante asks his question in the first four lines and answers in the remaining ten – this is very different to Petrarch's style.
Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) (1304-74) though, was to have the biggest influence with his tortured account of his love for Laura. Laura was not, as Beatrice had been for Dante, a way to God and salvation as portrayed in The Divine Comedy, but rather a correlative of God. This was the start of a movement from the sacred to secular, from symbol to image and an increasing focus on the individual – the Petrarchan sonnet: a man loves and desires a beautiful woman who is dedicated to chastity – either virginity or married chastity. Thus Petrarch is cited as one of the main figures of the humanist movement. There are 317 sonnets in his Canzoniere.
If love it be not, what is this thing I feel?
If love it be, it what kind of thing?
If good, then why so deadly is its sting?
If ill, why sweet to suffer on its wheel?
If willingly I burn, is my pain real?
If not, what use is all my murmuring?
O living death, O pains that pleasure bring!
How, unconsenting, am I brought to heel?
If I consent, I have no right to curse.
Amid such adverse winds in barque so slight,
Without a helm I sail on stormy seas,
Burdened with error, but of wisdom light,
So that I know not what desire I nurse,
I burn in winter and in summer freeze.
Petrarch:
Canzoniere, trans G R Nicholson
(Autolycus, 1987)
‘The Petrarchan sonnet characteristically treats its theme in two parts. The first eight lines, the octave, state a problem, ask a question, or express an emotional tension. The last six lines, the sestet, resolve the problem, answer the question, or relieve the tension.’ (Enc Brit) If only it was always that straightforward…..!
The structure:
Clearly divided into the octave and the sestet; then sub-divided into quatrains (octave) and tercets (sestet).
The volta – this is the ‘turn’ or ‘shift’ in the sonnet where the sense changes with the structure, perhaps towards resolution or even transformation.
Rhyming scheme:
Octave:
rima bacciata or kissing rhyme abba abba
Sestet:
rima incatenata or interlacing rhyme. Here it is cde cde, but it can vary:
cde dce or cde ced.
This structure has the interesting result of creating three rhyming couplets in the octave with two rhyming sounds – easier to achieve in Italian than English – does this have an impact on the way that the sense is carried along between one part of the sonnet and another? This is important in telling us why it changed in the hands of the English sonneteers.
Subject matter:
The subject is love! The form of the sonnet lends itself to this theme in that it produces so many contrasting emotions and sensations. As Levin says ‘When a sonnet is true to its nature, it encompasses contradiction and arrives at resolution or revelation’. Whether or not it arrives at revelation it certainly encompasses contradiction and exploits the inherent tension that the form dictates. It is also focussed on the experience of the individual – allowing for a particularly intensity of experience, in terms of the emotion/situation described, the act of writing the sonnet and the act of reading it.
The asymmetrical but tightly constructed configuration creates a poem that turns around and speaks to itself. In the first half – the octave- the speaker is trying to define love – he does this through a series of questions. In the sestet he attempts to reach some sort of definition of his condition which is that he does not know how to define it! The poem then becomes something of a circular argument, and there are times when you think that a resolution has been reached only to find that you are drawn back to something in the octave to make you reconsider.
This is also achieved by the use of rhetorical devices and extensive repetition – there are:
Key words: These are words that are repeated in the octave and sestet. Here,
consento is a good example of a word that appears twice but a shift in emotion takes place between the two occurrences – first he does not consent and then he admits that he might consent and if he does then he has no right to moan about his lot. Key words are particularly important in our understanding of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Shakespeare is fond of using repetition where the sense shifts in the same word –
antanaclasis.
Opposites: the use of antithesis Good/deadly; sweet/suffer; living/death; burn/freeze – all of these create tension in the poem and to illustrate the intensity of the speaker's emotional condition.
The Elizabethan Sonnet
Wyatt and Surrey
Thomas Wyatt, travelling as a diplomat and courtier, brought Petrarch’s sonnets back to England in 1520s and 30s. It was these that inspired Surrey. Both poets were published in
Tottel’s Miscellany (1557) - after both poets had been dead for some time - which while hardly heard of today had a huge influence on the development of English poetry – almost 100% that WS would have seen a copy if not owned one himself. In the preface Tottel talks about getting the poems out to a wider public, the implication being that they had been the property of a select few until that time.
I find no peace, and all my war is done,
I fear, and hope, I burn, and freeze like ice.
I fly above the wind, yet can I not arise.
And naught I have, and all the world I season.
That loseth nor locketh holdeth me in prison,
And holdeth me not, yet can I ’scape nowise;
Nor letteth me live nor die at my devise,
And yet of death it giveth me occasion.
Withouten eyen I see and without tongue I ’plain;
I desire to perish, and yet I ask health;
I love another, and thus I hate myself;
I feed me in sorrow, and laugh at all my pain.
Likewise displeaseth me both death and life,
And my delight is causer of this strife.
Thomas Wyatt (
after Petrarch)
Sir Philip Sidney
It was Sidney though who really kick-started the Elizabethan craze for sonneteering when his poems to Lady P Devereux published posthumously by his sister Mary Countess of Pembroke in 1591 –
Astrophil and Stella [Astro=star; phil=lover – Gk]. He was highly experimental and did not hesitate to push the boundaries of the form.
Astrophil and Stella no.1
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show,
That she (dear she) might take some pleasure of my pain;
Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know,
Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain,
I sought fit words to paint the blackest face of woe,
Studying inventions fine her wits to entertain;
Oft turning others’ leaves, to see if thence would flow
Some fresh and fruitful showers upon my sun-burned brain.
But words came halting forth, wanting Invention’s stay;
Invention, Nature’s child, fled step-dame Studie’s blowes,
And others’ feet still seem’d but strangers in my way.
Thus great with child to speake, and helpless in my throws,
Biting my truant pen, beating my self for spite,
‘Fool,’ said my Muse to me, ‘look in thy heart and write.’
Sidney was instrumental in the evolution of the sonnet – in essence this is a sonnet with Petrarchan characteristics – the speaker is hopelessly in love with an unattainable woman, and raises expectations that the remainder of the sequence will expand on this situation. ‘In fact, Sidney’s sequence is a highly self-conscious exercise in Petrarchan writing, which interlinks the frustration of Astrophel/Sidney’s political and amatory desires.’ (Brown and Johnson, OU, p.58). This view is supported by way in which Sidney interweaves songs with the sonnets – only Elizabethan sonneteer to do so, but with a direct line to Dante and Petrarch – with result that sequence takes on a new dimension.
Sidney was a great theorist and was seeking to bring the Petrarchan sonnet up to date: ‘Invention is the first part of classic rhetoric, the process of finding out whatever materials are appropriate for a given task…Astrophel approaches his composition in entirely the wrong order: he seeks fit words before he has chosen his basic materials or considered their presentation; he jumps straight to Elocution, leaving out Invention and Disposition, and this is why he finds it so hard to write.’ (Evans, xvii).
Other major sonneteers:
Samuel Daniel
Delia (1592)
Barnabe Barnes
Parthenophil and Parthenope (1593)
Thomas Lodge
Phillis (1593)
Giles Fletcher
Licia (1593)
Thomas Watson
The Tears of Fancy, or Love Disdained (1593)
Henry Constable
Diana (1594)
Michael Drayton
Idea’s Mirror; Idea in 63 Sonnets (1594)
William Percy
Sonnets to Celia (1594)
Edmund Spenser
Amoretti (1595)
Bartholomew Griffin
Fidessa (1596)
Richard Linche
Diella (1596)
William Smith
Chloris (1596)
Richard Barnfield
Cynthia (which includes a sequence on loving a man (see CB p18) (1597)
Robert Tofte
Laura (1597)
Part Two: Shakespeare’s Sonnets
My argument is that WS’s sequence is different to all those mentioned so far, and we will develop this through close reading. First something about his sequence – what do we know?
Date
On 20 May 1609 WS’ sonnets were entered into the
Stationers’ Register – Thomas Thorpe published 154 sonnets together with the poem
The Lover’s Complaint with which they are usually printed. WS’ sonnet sequence was the longest by far and was printed when the fashion for love sonnets was well passed, and it is the subject of some speculation as to why they were printed at that time, and whether the author had indeed anything to do with their publication.
This has ranged from reasons relating to the subject matter to theories that they never intended as a sequence, and were put together by the publisher/author to raise funds.
When and in what order were the Sonnets written?
1598 – Francis Meres (1565-1647) publishes his
Palladis Tamia (Wit’s Treasury) including a ‘Comparative Discourse of our English Poets with Greek, Latin and Italian Poets’ – ‘the sweet witty soul of Ovid lies in mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakespeare, witness his
Venus and Adonis, his
Lucrece, his sugared sonnets among his private friends, etc’ This is evidence, then, that WS had at least written some sonnets at this time if only for private circulation.
1599 –
The Passionate Pilgrim published by William Jaggard – it is almost a certainty that WS had nothing to do with the publication – the unauthorised volume has poems by a variety of authors including WS, and includes three extracts from
Love's Labours Lost (LLL) and versions of what are now known as Sonnets 138 and 144. Otherwise, there are poems by Griffin, Barnfield and Marlowe, and other works that may or may not be by WS, although it is starting to look increasingly doubtful.
The sonnets only appear together in a group then in 1609, but the question of the order in which they were published has vexed critics, who cannot agree whether WS even authorised the publication of the Sonnets let alone had a hand in deciding the order in which the sequence was finally laid out. Recently, studies have been carried out that look at the occurrence of rare words in the Sonnets and the most likely order is as follows:
1591-95 127-54
1594-95 61-103
1595-96 1-60
1598-1604 104-26
This is based on the work of McDonald P. Jackson who has related the occurrence of rarer words in the plays and the sonnets. See CB p.104/105 if interested further. Our increased knowledge of the dating process throws the way the whole sequence has been put together into question, and without a narrative, there is plenty of room for speculation. Sonnets 1-17, for instance, have become known as a distinct group in which the poet attempts to persuade a youth to marry and procreate.
The Dedication: who is Mr WH?
It is possible that WS was commissioned by the Countess of Pembroke to write this group for her son William Herbert, and he is a contender for the elusive WH of the dedication – ‘the onlie begetter’ of the ‘ensuing sonnets’. However theories surrounding this dedication have abounded to include others, another hot favourite being Henry Wriothesley the Earl of Southampton, and the dedicatee of
Venus & Adonis and
Lucrece, but this is also unlikely since in both these poems the dedication is clearly by WS himself, as they come with a short paragraph and are signed by the author and Southampton was in his late twenties when most of sonnets probably written - too old!.
Other options: Thomas Thorpe dedicated these to some unknown person – the ‘adventurer’ in WS’ absence – perhaps as KDJ suggests he was out of London because of the plague. Even more likely is that TT simply published these on his own initiative – the sonnet craze was well and truly over and WS may have never intended to publish – TT was just acting off his name. Bate even suggests that WH is a misprint for WS who is the only true ‘begetter’ of these sonnets in the sense often used by poets – that he gave birth to them – perhaps a jibe at Jaggers. We’ll never know...
Reception
In terms of WS’ other published poetry the sonnets were a failure compared to the hits
Venus & Adonis and
Lucrece (1594). This could either be because the sonnet craze was really over or because of the subject matter or the frustrating lack of a narrative, which had driven other sonnet sequences –
Astrophil and Stella; Delia etc:
1640 – Benson published the second edition changing the order of the Sonnets and changing three masculine pronouns to feminine ones
1780 – Malone restored their order and was the first thorough and academic editor
1803 – Wordsworth thought they were: ‘abominably harsh, obscure, and worthless’ although 20 years later he was to defend them in that sonnet!
1821 – William Hazlitt: ‘And as for their ultimate drift, as for myself, I can make neither head nor tail of it’
1938 – John Crowe Ransom: ‘generally they are ill-constructed’
It is clear that critics have long had a problem with the sequence, many trying desperately to prove that these sonnets do not form a sequence at all, or at least not one that WS authorised. There are, though, distinguishable groups within the sequence – e.g the Dark Lady sonnets, the procreation sonnets and the ‘rival poet’ sonnets. We will come back to this question – what makes WS’s sonnets so different many times as we read the sequence from the beginning….
