Systems of Thought in Shakespeare's Sonnets (1-16) - "Working Draft"

Layering the Sonnets

The general thought is that Shakespeare’s Sonnet 20 is his one open expression of homosexuality in all of his sonnets. There are hints of affection toward male figures in a few other sonnets, but the direct reference to homosexual acts and feeling all comes to realization in number 20. Criticism has been made of what it means. The discussion is limited because most critics refuse to take notice of the larger universe of thought and gender relations that Shakespeare builds in his sonnets. Sonnet 20 is about Shakespeare’s sensual and sexual interest, but numerous other sonnets elaborate on Shakespeare’s thoughts about the young man who began as his strict subject ordered by his father (he was his Shakespeare’s benefactor at the time) to convince to marry and then became someone to be enamored with.

Many critics are willing to admit that the male friend who is the subject of Shakespeare’s first 16 sonnets is the one that transformed into the object of Shakespeare’s desire in Sonnet 20, but they do not connect the act of Shakespeare trying to convince this young man to marry as being one of the major reason that Shakespeare is enamored with him. Martin Seymour-Smith believes there is a transition in Sonnet 17 and 18 that foretells Sonnet 20, but he remains dismissive of the first 16 Sonnets, “One does not need to conjecture that Shakespeare had a received a commission from someone to urge a young man to marry: the formal nature of the theme is obvious, for the exhortations to marry are clearly more rhetorical than invested with emotion. They are ‘boring’ in that they have little impact, even as arguments.” (1-24)

The beginning of Seymour- Smith’s explanation starts with a background of Renaissance sexuality and the normality of homoerotic relations between men during the times. Because modern ideas of sexuality and our conception of the denigration of homosexuality did not crop until years after the Renaissance, there is no established idea of whether homosexual relationships were really looked down upon in society. The comments and criticisms have lead to an ambiguity of what was acceptable and what was not. The critic Mario DiGangi highlights the open ended aspect of homosexuality by pointing out that homoeroticism in the Renaissance period extended to friendships between men. He offers a pastoral poem, written in 1607, by Lewes Machin, as example. In it, there is a friendship between two men, Apollo and Hyacinth, that describes their physicality and affection to each other with terms like, “toying,” “play,” embracing,” and that hours together were spent “in delight.” DiGangi says while it is not exactly clear what they do together, the important thing “is that Apollo is said to prefer his ‘male paramore’ to women” (2-198)

If the implication is that same line of thought could be put to Shakespeare’s first 16 Sonnets, one might think Seymour-Smith would probably retort that the context of the relationships were totally different. The pastoral poem by Machin suggests a personal relationship between the two men. As Seymour- Smith sees it, it isn’t until Sonnet 17 until Shakespeare personalizes the admiration of his male friend with the line, “If I could write the beauty of your eyes.” [Line #5] As Seymour-Smith interprets it, “this was the first time that he unequivocally linked himself to the idea of beauty in the Friend.” Seymour-Smith believes that all previous sonnets were done because Shakespeare was rudimentary tasks set by his benefactor.

In his essay, “Marlowe, Queer Studies, and Renaissance Homoeroticism,” Mario DiGangi’s argues that the criterion with which to judge the place of homoerotic relations or feelings during the Renaissance was too skewed to identify in black and white. He qualifies the Lewes Machin poem as an instance in which friendship bordered on homosexual feelings, but DiGangi disqualifies even this friendship as solid evidence. He relates back to the notion that there is no way to define what would constitute as homosexual at the time, “the indeterminacy of the ‘sexual’ should make us skeptical of approaches that deem homosexual ‘acts’ more subjectively and socially meaningful than homoerotic desires or discourses, and that require ‘evidence’ of homosexual acts…before granting the existence of homosexual desires.”(2-199) DiGangi seems to want critics to take notice of the idea that there could be other ways in which to judge the place of homosexual feelings. Just because most works from the time period doesn’t show both the act and desire of overt homosexuality doesn’t mean there weren’t attempts to allude to it at all.

In Shakespeare’s sonnets, it is trickier because only a few sonnets explicitly refer to even the equivalent of male friendship on the level of which DiGangi holds up as his best estimate of homosexual feeling, but because DiGangi’s ultimate thesis is that one can never gage the nature of homosexual relationships during the Renaissance, so it allows for the interpretation to exist on other levels. With Shakespeare’s poetics, the best entry level into interpreting the homosexual inklings is by taking a systematic analysis of how Shakespeare regards the genders. The first 20 sonnets do not prove Shakespeare was strictly homosexual because later sonnets would be more conventional with juxtaposition of self involvement over the love of a woman, but they still set up the idea that Shakespeare wasn’t strict about his sexual orientation and because the sonnets are considered the best biographical information about Shakespeare the interpretation of all the sonnets as if they were one larger piece of literature brings out some interesting revelations about the discourse of Shakespeare’s mind and ideology. Martin Seymour-Smith believes that any sonnet that does not have the “I” as the subject doesn’t reflect the personal side of Shakespeare, but the fact is that all of the sonnets still come from Shakespeare and do reflect institutional thoughts and predispositions of his psyche, social fields and the forces that
instantiate him.

To be fair to Martin Seymour-Smith’s thesis, the first sonnets do start out with Shakespeare strictly adhering mainly to the request for the young man to marry and have children. He sets a tone in sonnet 1 that mixes affection for the young man with attention to what he should be doing for his family’s sake, but the language in the first sonnet is thicker with the tone it is paramount that the young man start procreating. The first two lines, “From the fairest creatures we desire increase, / That thereby beauty’s rose might never die” introduces the theme, but the only words that strike the reader as effeminate in interest for the young man is “fairest” and “beauty’s rose”. The words are sincere terms of admiration, but they lack all possessiveness of true interest on Shakespeare’s part. They read as just general terms of beauty for something. As the poem continues, it starts to define itself with a tone that gets more dire and commanding of what the young man’s duty is to do for his family,

Feed’st thy light’s flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
To thy self thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel. [6-8]

The quote is three lines long, but only one word, “sweet”, stands out as tender to the subject while the rest is authoritative of what the young man’s situation and role is. The sonnet continues on and offers some diversity, but the word choice by Shakespeare that could be interpreted as caring still comes off as cold.

Thou art now the world’s fresh ornament,
And only herald to this gaudy spring,
Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
And, tender churl, mak’st waste in niggarding; [9-12]

In the first line he refers to the young man as a “fresh ornament” for the world. The implication is that the young man should see himself as a symbol and part of a social order that has expectations, but instead he is “herald[ing] to this gaudy spring,” meaning he is distracting himself with tasteless endeavors. Then the sonnet acknowledges the sphere of the young man’s happiness with “content”, but says that he is forgoing it by refusing to produce any children. Shakespeare surrounds the sonnet with the theory that peace and happiness is found in having children and preserving the cultivation of the family unit.

The rest of the sonnet paints a grim fate for the young man because of his actions. The last few lines are biting and harsh, “Pity the world, or else this glutton be, / To eat the world’s due, by the grave and thee.” Shakespeare sounds like he is over embellishing what is at stake with implying the ruination of the world in any way, but Shakespeare means to be downtrodden to the young man. The picture that the reader takes away from first the sonnet is symbolism of life and death and the remnants of the boy’s guilt being synonymous with a great sin (the mention of “glutton”). The excellent language that Shakespeare deploys in the first sonnet has to do with his word choice in the painting the great error that the young man is committing.

The major change of tone in sonnets begins with sonnet 3. Shakespeare still believes in the social order where it is right for the young man to be married off, but in this sonnet he begins to approach his subject with a more affectionate and understanding tone. Unlike sonnet 1, Shakespeare isn’t summing up his affection for the young man in just a few choice words, but Shakespeare’s overall tone in appeasing to the young man is noticeably different. This sonnet could be seen as the first instance, in which Shakespeare is appealing to the heart of the young man,

Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest
Now is the time that face should form another,
Whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest
Thou does beguile the world, unbless some mother [1-4]

The distinction of the word choice is how neutral Shakespeare is compared the first sonnet. The approach with the young man is the same, but the tone is much more pleasant. Only the line, “thou does beguile the world,” shares the tone of the first sonnet in painting a worldly gloom. The phrase stands out in this section the way “sweet” stood out in the first sonnet and for the first time Shakespeare introduces “unbless.” The word is repeated in other sonnets, but is a seminal word in the effeminate tone that Shakespeare builds in his relationship to the young man.

Or who is he so fond will be the tomb
Of his self-love to stop posterity?
Thou art thy mother’s glass, and she in thee
Calls back the lovely April of her prime; [7-10]

In sonnet 1 the word “glutton” replaced “fond”. The former represented a sin of self absorption while fond is a mild term for infatuation and silliness. The difference of tone continues in the next line when Shakespeare admits a form of self-love for the young man. Also in sonnet 1 the term of love was wrapped in the cloak of being able to provide for future generations, but Shakespeare here admits that “love” can exist even in selfishness. Then there is the image of the mother. In the first quote of this sonnet the mother was about his possible future wife and what the young man was robbing her with choosing not to marry, but in this quote Shakespeare is equating the young man’s beauty to his own mother’s, “Look art thou thy mother’s glass, and she in thee.” Glass is symbolic of reflection so Shakespeare’s best estimation of the young man’s beauty is in his mother, but not her at just any time, but his beauty “Calls back to the lovely April of her prime;” In the notes with the sonnet, April refers to “proverbially fresh,” likely a month that was good for farming. Of course “prime” is a call back to the mother’s youth and height of her beauty.
If there is any criticism of this sonnet for lack of a personal context, it could be that Shakespeare was changing the perspective in which he was trying to convince the young man to do the same thing, marry. Sonnet 1 could be from a stern point of view and represent the young man’s father (Shakespeare’s benefactor at the time) and this sonnet could represent his mother. Taking on two points of views would require different languages and approaches, but it isn’t that simple. In the sonnet 1 Shakespeare established a tone that not only highlighted the young man doing very bad deeds, but looked at his selfishness with a definite idea of what it was and wasn’t. The amazing part of sonnet 3 is how Shakespeare changes so much identification of the young man and what his actions mean. In the span of a couple of sonnets the representation of the young man has almost completely changed, save the fact that Shakespeare still believes that it is best he marry.

The development in sonnet 3 reflects the greater tone of the sonnets about the young man, but it still isn’t convincing that there was a systematic thought to Shakespeare’s affection that could be understood as homosexual on a significant level. Everything changes though with sonnet 10 when Shakespeare inserts himself into the argument of what is proper for the young man. Beginning with the 9th line,

O, change thy thought, that I may change my mind:
Shall hate be fairer lodged than gentle love?
Be as thy presence is, gracious and kind,
Or to thyself at least kind-hearted prove:
Make thee another self for love of me,
That beauty still may live in thine and thee. [9-14]

The first line is a plea by Shakespeare (invoking for the first time, “I”) that the young man change his mind about procreation so Shakespeare himself can about him as well. The next line is about the young man’s refusal to have children spewing hatred out of him and that it would be wiser to choose love in kinship instead. The next few lines are a variety of well wishes in choosing to find a wife over being selfish and refusing to have children. The interesting transition comes in, “Make thee another self for love of me.” It is the first time that Shakespeare speaks of a personal relationship, but he shrouds feelings what will become very personal and possessive in the idea that it is still the good thing for this young man to marry and have children, but the final line reveals a deeper institution of thought. “That beauty still may live in thine and thee” shows that Shakespeare looks for beauty may live in the offspring for the young man, likely the family gene and even Shakespeare as well.

The evolution in just these three sonnets is telling. In the first sonnet Shakespeare is very rigorous in telling the young man what his role is in society. Then Shakespeare highlights him in a different light in sonnet 3 that is not only affectionate and sympathetic, but starts to speak of the young man in distinctly feminine features. The object of Shakespeare’s language becomes less about the condemnation of this young man and more about his positive features and the shame there is in his selfishness. It is the beginning of identification for Shakespeare in his subject. Then in sonnet 10, a full circle of the relationship between the writer and subject takes place as Shakespeare tries to put himself as much into the situation that allows Shakespeare not to disbelieve everything that goes against order at the time. The last two lines smack of Shakespeare being enamored with the young man, but the tone of his feelings is that everything must exist with a certain social order. Shakespeare can’t radicalize the relationship or even change the feelings of the young man, so instead he wishes what he was originally contracted to convince the young man to do: marry. It’s just that Shakespeare hopes in this conclusion he can live through the good looks and charms of the young man’s offspring. The idea being that Shakespeare can revel in what good looks and charm the young man will produce in his children.

The first 16 sonnets don’t explicitly document homosexuality, but the point of looking for structures of thought in the sonnets is to show that all the sonnets about one subject (the young man), had a beginning and an end. Shakespeare plays with general moral judgment in sonnet 1, but the sonnets evolve and so does Shakespeare’s thoughts. He institutes himself in a role with the young man and his belief that he should marry, but he starts to sympathize with the young man and even look to him as a feminine character and start to preclude meanings he will take on later sonnets, but the main revelation comes in sonnet 10. For the first time Shakespeare puts himself into the situation of the young man’s marrying and wishes (for his sake) that he will marry and procreate, but the context of the language goes beyond the advice of just a good friend. It shows a level of need on Shakespeare’s part to inject himself into the young man’s life and make both of their beauties come together. Then with the reading of sonnets 17-20, there comes a full picture of Shakespeare emotional and mental development with the young man.








WORKS CITED
1.) Seymour-Smith, Martin. “Shakespeare’s Sonnets 1-42: A Psychological Reading.” New Essays on Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Ed. Hilton Landry. New York: AMS Press, Inc, 1976. 21-40.
2.) DiGangi, Mario. “Marlowe, Queer Studies, and Renaissance Homoeroticism.” Marlowe, History and Sexuality: New Essays on Christopher Marlowe. Ed. Paul Whitfield White. New York: AMS Press, Inc. 1998. 194-212