What is so great about this poem is that it makes excellent use of the momentum of the English sonnet form, culminating in a beautiful pair of lines that simultaneously do and do not make sense:
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at haven’s gate;
Literally, it means something like, “When the lark wakes up at dawn it sings to heaven from the earth, and this is just like what happens when I am feeling very bad about myself and then I think of you.” How, exactly, does the poet turn from the previous lines of crying, cursing, and discontent into a lark? Or is it the turn of mind itself–the act of thinking on his beloved–that is lark-like? Is it the poet, his state, or his transformation that resemble a lark? And where did this bird come from in the first place?
Fortunately, we find ourselves not troubling a bit over these details, because by the time we arrive at the end of the third quatrain, we have been swept away by a poem that takes full advantage of the meter and rhyme scheme of the sonnet to propel us toward a spectacular end.
The tension that drives us here lies between fulfilling and confounding our expectations. Wonderful, ambiguous line endings like his “bootless cries”, (which resonates with being barefoot and poor) though desiring to be, “rich in hope” (can you deposit that in a bank?), “with friends possessed” (is that really a good thing?), desiring one man’s art and another’s “scope” (range? or what? and how?)–yet each of these line endings rings with a remarkable clarity and certainty, not because they are logical but because they rhyme with the ending two lines back.
And so, we are dazzled and carried along to this wonderful, unexpected ending involving a bird who rises up from the earth (apparently that’s where they nest) and sings to heaven. In this thought the poet realizes the memory of his love for his beloved is so rich as to make him better off than a king. Yet it is not actually the beloved, but the memory–the inner experience–that brings the poet richness. Just as it is not the literal meaning, but the wonderful tension between the sense of certainty and the literal ambiguity that brings to us the full richness of this poem.
What is so great about this poet is that he makes a form as intense, compact, and exacting as the English sonnet seem effortless. Furthermore, he brings all its devices to bear to intimate something that seems meaningful, beautiful, and important to us. There is no disputing Shakespeare’s importance to poetry. Stephen Booth once remarked to our class that, “saying Shakespeare was the best poet of his age is like saying King Kong was bigger than the other monkeys.” Despite changes in the English language and literary fashion, the bard remains an enduring example of elevating art to its highest potential.
On some side notes, my wife recently introduced me to a beautiful setting of this poem by Rufus Wainwright. He manages to avoid the pitfalls of trying to set iambic pentameter into its natural rhythm–which is utterly boring–and in fact produces a simple structure that is higly effective in evoking the spirit of the poem. Unfortunately, I’m not quite sure where you can get ahold of a recording.
This sonnet also gives me some sense of link to my past. Years ago I was given a copy of Shakespeare’s works that used to belong to my great great grandfather. The volume is pristine, except for a pencil mark that circles this poem. Perhaps he too took comfort from the harsh midwest farming life of the early 20th century in thoughts of someone he loved or in the love of a poem. It is wonderful to think that a man I never met, and yet who influenced my life so greatly, may have similarly enjoyed and appreciated this poem.
10 Comments
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 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
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.
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!
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.
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.
“Bootless” is often weakly translated as “useless”. My imagery sees a prayer (cries) trying to journey to Heaven without protected feet(bootless). The prayers don’t arrive to be heard. Thus, Heaven is deaf.
Wow! What a hopeless state of being.
“Bootless cries” is then an extreme contrast with “Sings hymns at Heaven’s gate”. Both are prayers (communicating with Heaven). Crying and Singing are really very similar ways to use a human voice. Variations in tone and pitch very different than just talking.
Well, I ramble .. done : )
Hi Bob,
Thanks for chiming in. I like your explanation of bootless implying cries “without protected feet.” It also reinforces the poverty/riches themes.
Best,
Robert