Monday, July 17. 2006
Shakespeare: "Sonnet 29"
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Robert, thanks for leaving me a comment on my blog "Special Needs".
I love this sonnet of Shakespeare! The "beloved" can be construed to mean so many things, not just a beloved person but also passions in life which give us meaning and reasons to feel joy.
Could be a belief, maybe, or an intense bonding with the nature of the world as we experience it?
I love this sonnet of Shakespeare! The "beloved" can be construed to mean so many things, not just a beloved person but also passions in life which give us meaning and reasons to feel joy.
Could be a belief, maybe, or an intense bonding with the nature of the world as we experience it?
I think one of the wonderful things about Shakespeare’s sonnet sequences is that, just like Petrarch and other great sonetteers, Shakespeare relates to The Beloved so intensely and so long that it does become an abstraction. In fact, the very object of desire shifts from the Fair Young Man to the Dark Lady within the sequence, sort of pulling the rug out from under our desire to think love poetry is about a person and celebrate its ability instead to celebrate love in all its guises. Thanks for sharing. The last comment I got on this post was, "I hate Shakespeare and literature" and, well you can see from the link on this page how I feel about that.
Hi Robert,
Your comment on Rufus Wainwright’s wonderful version of this poem caught my eye and I couldn’t let your statement that weren’t sure where a recording of it could be found go by unremarked. If you check Amazon, you should find it under the CD compilation "When Love Speaks." I agree that his take on this sonnet is utterly lovely.
Best,
Stephanie
Your comment on Rufus Wainwright’s wonderful version of this poem caught my eye and I couldn’t let your statement that weren’t sure where a recording of it could be found go by unremarked. If you check Amazon, you should find it under the CD compilation "When Love Speaks." I agree that his take on this sonnet is utterly lovely.
Best,
Stephanie
Thanks so much for the source, Stephanie! Great to finally know where it comes from.
Good evening! Succinct take on this poem.
Did Booth ever address the parentheses issue? How one decides makes an interpretative shift, albiet perhaps slight.
The Q reads:
"…, and then my state
(like to the lark at break of day arising)
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;"
while Vendler & most others treats that as a mistake and prints it as:
"…, and then my state
(like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth) sings hymns at heaven’s gate;"
Both make sense but the Q version makes the speaker’s being (state) directly associated with "sullen" earth on & from which he sings to heaven’s gate. The other way, with sullen earth directly associated with the lark, places his being at the gate where he sings.
Using Vendler’s rewrite technique, one can better see the connection. In this case drop out the parenthetical line so it reads:
"…, and then my state
from sullen earth sings hymns at heaven’s gate,"
now add the parenthetical line:
"…, and then my state
from sullen earth sings hyms at heaven’s gate,
(like to the lark at break of day arising)"
As the Q punctuation keeps the negative word "sullen" associated with the speaker who’s also uttered "bootless cries" "despising himself" & so on, and as the punctuation encloses one complete line or a simple unity of thought, I’m now going with interpreting and speaking the poem with that emphasis.
Still in the context of the poem "sullen" is a word more naturally associated with the depressed speaker, rather than with the lark which is only doing a natural thing, "arising" from its earth nest.
Having learned it the other way, it is of course something I have to make a conscious effort to do. To make it work verbally, pause a hair longer at state and after arising so as to "hear" the whole line as one.
Regards.
Did Booth ever address the parentheses issue? How one decides makes an interpretative shift, albiet perhaps slight.
The Q reads:
"…, and then my state
(like to the lark at break of day arising)
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;"
while Vendler & most others treats that as a mistake and prints it as:
"…, and then my state
(like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth) sings hymns at heaven’s gate;"
Both make sense but the Q version makes the speaker’s being (state) directly associated with "sullen" earth on & from which he sings to heaven’s gate. The other way, with sullen earth directly associated with the lark, places his being at the gate where he sings.
Using Vendler’s rewrite technique, one can better see the connection. In this case drop out the parenthetical line so it reads:
"…, and then my state
from sullen earth sings hymns at heaven’s gate,"
now add the parenthetical line:
"…, and then my state
from sullen earth sings hyms at heaven’s gate,
(like to the lark at break of day arising)"
As the Q punctuation keeps the negative word "sullen" associated with the speaker who’s also uttered "bootless cries" "despising himself" & so on, and as the punctuation encloses one complete line or a simple unity of thought, I’m now going with interpreting and speaking the poem with that emphasis.
Still in the context of the poem "sullen" is a word more naturally associated with the depressed speaker, rather than with the lark which is only doing a natural thing, "arising" from its earth nest.
Having learned it the other way, it is of course something I have to make a conscious effort to do. To make it work verbally, pause a hair longer at state and after arising so as to "hear" the whole line as one.
Regards.
Good evening fellow Robert. Thanks for stopping by.
Unfortunately, we are moving over the Memorial Day weekend, which means I have already boxed up my copy of Stephen Booth’s /Shakespeare’s Sonnets/. He gives a beautiful close read of every sonnet in that book, and no doubt if parenthesis were an issue, he tackled it with aplomb (as you have also done above).
Cheers!
Unfortunately, we are moving over the Memorial Day weekend, which means I have already boxed up my copy of Stephen Booth’s /Shakespeare’s Sonnets/. He gives a beautiful close read of every sonnet in that book, and no doubt if parenthesis were an issue, he tackled it with aplomb (as you have also done above).
Cheers!
Where Shakespeare states
"And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries"
the word "bootless" can also be seen as futile or useless
and when he also states
"Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;"
he uses the words "sullen" to bring forth the feeling of hopelessness yet on the same line uses "heaven" representing his hope that seems unreachable, yet just a wing span away.
But this imagry that he depicted comes AFTER he states "Haply I think on thee, and then my state"
thus making that line stick in your mind like a lark (a beautiful song bird) trapped on "sullen" earth yet sings songs at heaven’s gate and this is his hope.
there’s no confusion or change of mind in what he’s writting. it all flows together.
"And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries"
the word "bootless" can also be seen as futile or useless
and when he also states
"Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;"
he uses the words "sullen" to bring forth the feeling of hopelessness yet on the same line uses "heaven" representing his hope that seems unreachable, yet just a wing span away.
But this imagry that he depicted comes AFTER he states "Haply I think on thee, and then my state"
thus making that line stick in your mind like a lark (a beautiful song bird) trapped on "sullen" earth yet sings songs at heaven’s gate and this is his hope.
there’s no confusion or change of mind in what he’s writting. it all flows together.
Hi Miranda, thanks for stopping by. I think you make an excellent point about the way the image of the lark can "stick in your mind" as emblematic of what this poem is all about. I wasn’t suggesting the poem is confusing — merely teasing out some of how this poem employs "precious nonsense" to create non-literal resonances. The poet doesn’t "change his mind" as much as employ a device in sonnets known as the volta, or turn, wherein the poem often realizes a synthesis of its previous elements. In this case, the lark is that synthesis.

