Duality in Shakespeare's belief system: Sonnet's 116 and 147

This short essay/blog draws comparison between the content and text of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 and 147.  Both Sonnets praise love in an idealistic way, but only Sonnet 147 advises as to the possible ill result of allowing oneself to believe in this idealistic state of love. Understanding the dynamics and metadiscourse, both screaming throughout Sonnet 116 and Sonnet 147, gives insight into the duality of the personal belief in the narrator. While every human may consider the virtues in love—each like these sonnets, examines love in terms of it as either being good or bad In Sonnet 116 the narrator starts with advice, perhaps from personal experience, with an instruction to a young audience or man. The narrator advises “Let me not to the marriage of true minds/ Admit impediments,” then tells what love is and then what love is not through comparison. On the other hand Sonnet 147 is directed towards an audience which would be of women or to a woman. Sonnet 116 and 147 are both basically about love, but I think more important than the symbolism is the concept of the dual nature in love by the narrator. In both we are told many things about the virtues and descriptions of love.  Images are presented by the lighthouse or the North Star. Or further along, still on the subject of love, changes the imagery with terms like value and calculated to time and sickle. The narrator eases along satisfied to describe what love is and is not then concludes with a claim or knock-this-stick-off-my-shoulder guarantee in both sonnets. Both poems are constructed in the same simple form and do not necessarily agree with Pinksky’s idea of the suffering lover. The entrance to sonnet 116 seems to be the jewel of the two in that the narrator takes a moment to instruct his audience as to who is being included in this and who is not included.

What does Love have to do with Marriage: Sonnet 116 and Scene 5 from Much Ado about Nothing

Clever is Mr. Shakespeare as he prods us along with sweet ideas of love and marriage then to the incredible circumstances of the supposed death of Hero, and the ruination of the family found in scene 5, and finally the truth is learned. I mean within this super funny comedy lies this tragic scene. What outside factors may have induced him to write such. Is this a reflection of or a common sort of joke or motif. Either way scene 5 certainly includes several sort of humorous circumstances mixed with serious stuff, like when the character Leonato says or makes this observation..."No, no, ’tis all men’s office to speak patience/To those that wring under the load of sorrow," Funny stuff. Another circumstance is with Dogberry and his return. He's no mathematician. He recollects the dishonest by counting secondly to sixth--"Marry, sir, they have committed false report; moreover,/they have spoken untruths;/ secondarily, they are slanders;/sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves." Shakespeare seems to spare nothing when he writes about life around him in the 1600's. It seems so different than say the King James Bible which I can read easily.
Sonnet 116 seems, when read by itself and prima fascie, it is about what and how Shakespeare thinks love is all about. He tells us over and over throughout this well timed, solid and sound poem.
Reading Shakespeare for me sort of grows on you. I've taken the time to look up word after word and analysis after analysis concerning word play, inside jokes, and general information centering  the readings of Shakespeare. The plot in "Much Ado About Nothing" along with the humor continues to make a bold observations about love, marriage, and relationships.
   

Much Ado about Nothing: Act 1 and "The Legal Status of Women"

     Up until now--a senior required Shakespeare class at Clemson University for all English majors--my only experience with Shakespeare was through the character Bugs Bunny in his cartoon rendition of Hamlet, www.youtube.com/watch?AWRZut6klgEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DmkcoSsuHk, which is actually really funny and true to Shakespeare. I still remember the lines-- neither a Borrower (or as a kid I said Barber) nor a lender be do not forget stay out of debt.
     The first lesson I learned when I undertook to read Much Ado About Nothing: reading Shakespeare requires a very focused and specialized field of knowledge.  I am strongly against the retelling of such a wonderful comedy by such a greenhorn as I or anyone else for that matter of An examination of the weirdness of words within is perhaps a better method of discovery, Let's face it, anyone can access volumes of information which attempts to unravel the clever word play used in the text.
     According to Frank Kermode in  on line article (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kermode-language.html, "Generations of scholars have answered the challenge, and a lot is now known about the companies and audiences, about prompt books and parts, about acting styles and conventions, about contemporary fashions and contemporary censorship, even about which actors played what roles."
     Taking all the above into consideration--a thorough mining of the weirdness in act 1 gleans these items. The first lines spoken by Shakespeare's character Leonato show humor to be an important factor in this play-- when the character Leonato asks the messenger "How many gentleman have you lost by this action?" This sort of clever style of humor flows throughout the play. Another odd pearl of weirdness is found when we see the amount of witty banter between  Beatrice and Benedick. These techniques seem to beg the question of the status of relationships between men and women. My favorite line is her mocking reply “I had rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves me,” (I.i.107–108). Beatrice shows her superficial disdain for men and marriage.
      Beatrice it would appear and according to the essay "The Legal Status of Women" had a certain power or influence women of this period may or may not have possessed. Throughout the entire Act the audience is exposed to a taste of humor--clever, dry, and intelligent.
      In closing, its clear from the start of this play--reading a play is a far cry from seeing the play.