Talk:Shakespeare's sonnets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I confess I'm rather confused by the following passage:

"Shakespeare's repeated declarations of love for the young man are charged with a fine homoerotic sensitivity, full of passion and thinly veiled allusions to sexuality, going as far as practically stripping the boy naked in (20), although others prefer to see them as supreme expressions of Platonic love, deliberately contrasted with the carnal attractiveness of that woman who Shakespeare elusively calls the Dark Lady and presumably other women."

Sonnet 20 only strips the young man naked in the sense that it describes 'Nature' creating him - originally as a woman - and then adding 'something to my purpose nothing' (ie. a penis, which is no good to him). In other words it's certainly erotic in a weird kind of way, but explicitly states that a penis is not what he wants. I suggest it indicates a considerable confusion on the poet's part, but the sexual allusions are not 'thinly veiled', they are wholly explicit, and the stripping naked has the opposite meaning to the one implied by this text - it reveals something he doesn't want.

Secondly, Shakespeare never calls the woman the 'dark lady'. That's just a conventional term used by commentators on the sonnets, nor is it fair to say that 'presumably' all women are associated with carnality. At least I can't recall such a passage.

For these reasons I'm altering the passage, but am explaining my reasons here because I want to stress that it is not a result of 'homophobic' resistence to the suggestion that Shakespeare was involved in a homosexual relationship.

• I would really like to listen to your comments after some re-editing of this article. j.g.

• Fine. I'm here. User:Paul Barlow

I removed the comment about S's authorship. I dn't think it's appropriate here, partly because we have no more reason to dispute S's authorship than that of any other work, but mainly because it's not relevant to the meaning of the sonnets as they are discussed here.

Right you are, Paul Barlow, with both of your comments! Thanks indeed! --217.80.230.92 20:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think your comments are presumptuous? To accept them one would have to read more deeply into the meaning of the poems than the meaning that is otherwise evident. A multitude of explanations could be grafted onto the interpretation if one is keen on exploiting the ambiguities of the poems. His "love" for the young man and praise for his "beauty" do not imply homosexuality. Interpreting his sonnets as you did entails a leap of faith. Rintrah 15:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is "you" and what interpretation are you objecting to? I guess Blakean mythological characters are often obscure, but a little more clarity might not go amiss. Paul B 01:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

'You' is you. I object to your interpretation of sonnet 20: that it is a confused erotic poem pertaining to this boy. I also object to the plethora of interpretations seeking to prove Shakespeare was a homosexual. Indulgent interpretations and talk devalue his poetry. Rintrah 13:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Try reading my comments more carefully. You might eventually spot that I was removing the passage on the grounds that it was too insistant that the poems revealed homosexual desire. I then expressed my own view that the poem betrayed "confusion", but I wouldn't put that in the article, since it's just a personal thought. I then said that it seemed to me that it was not homosexual because it said that a penis was something "he doesn't want". That view might be queried, especially as "nothing" (an-O-thing) can be a slang term for the vulva, so "to my purpose nothing" is potentially ambiguous. Anyway, you give no reasons for your objection, you just state that you "object". Why? Homoerotic interpretations of the sonnets are commonplace, so that aspect should be mentioned. But the fact is that the only direct references to sexual acts are in the Dark Lady sonnets. That's why I removed the paragraph about Shakespeare's "fine homoerotic sensitivity". This was a long while ago. Apart from reverting vandalism a couple of times, I haven't contributed anything to this article for over a year. By the way, I believe someone once said that the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. Try it. Neither Shakespeare nor Blake were inhibited. Paul B 20:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a collaborative article, so there is no 'you'. The sonnets have been read as homoerotic by many commentators over the past few centuries so that needs to be mentioned. But it is certainly true that this article needs a lot more material about the poetry aside from its sexual implications. So why don't you add something? Then the article will become better. The Singing Badger 14:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't realized how bad this page was. I did a major rework, to remove POV-pushing. It still needs a lot more material on themes, poetic style, philosophy, etc., so if that's what you want to see, start adding it. The Singing Badger 15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Paul. I misread your comment the first time. I posted my comment when I should have been sleeping. Yes, someone did say "the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom". You could also add "the cut worm forgives the plow." Rintrah 08:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Minor Change 2 Paraphrase 3 Redirect Mr W.H. 4 Master/Mister 5 Fair friend, youth, lord... 6 Mr. W.H. 7 Introduction 8 Small question 9 Question 10 Contradiction

[edit] Minor Change

Commenting on the condition before edit of the Modern Editions.

I read the article and found it very helpful so kudos to the previous writers but found myself confused by the ordering on the Modern Edition section. I could see no concievable pattern behind the previous pattern so I changed it to date order, I hope this is allright although if there was an earlier system I would like to hear what it was. Grend3l 19:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Seems like a chronological list is much better. AdamBiswanger1 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphrase

Could we have some paraphrasing?Cameron Nedland 21:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Of what? The Singing Badger 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the sonnets. What they mean.Cameron Nedland 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There's over 150 of them. You're going to have to be more specific! The Singing Badger 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A. L. Rowse's edition of the sonnets provides modern English "translations" of all the sonnets. Geoff Puterbaugh

[edit] Redirect Mr W.H.

I have merged Mr. W.H. into Shakespeare's Sonnets for convenience. Here follows material from Talk:Mr. W.H. for reference.

An anonymous editor has replaced the article with the following utterance, which I am moving here:

And this page remains as a dedication to the stupidity of Paul Barlow, who REMOVES all comments he does not like, rather than stating WHY he does not like them.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Shakespeare did NOT write the dedication to the sonnets. And, by the way, Master Barlow, have you actually read "Venus and Adonis?"

Or the sonnets?

Reply: I have read all of Shakespeare's works. You are behaving like a vandal. Try reading WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The article does not claim that Shakespeare wrote the dedication. It attempts to cover all the notable arguments that have been used and continue to be used. Paul B 11:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It reminded me why I can't stand Rowse - not what he says, but the way in which he says it. Anyone who needs an explanation WHY a comment like "This is simply idiotic" is unacceptable in an encyclopedia article doesn't have a clue as to what they are doing. Carlo 17:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master/Mister

Haiduc, in Shakespeare's day "Master" was not used for youths. The distinction between "Master" and "Mister" did not exist. It arose later (see Master (form of address)). Here is a scene from The Merry Wives of Windsor, see how the characters are addressed as "Master Ford" etc [1] Paul B 11:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If so I stand corrected. But Norton is a good historian. Could there be another side to this? Haiduc 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Norton simply states his 'young sir' claim with evidence; as far as I know he's in error there. Check out Henry IV Part 2, where even a senile elderly gentleman is called 'Master Robert Shallow'. The Singing Badger 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. "Master Shallow" is supposed to be 80 in the Merry Wives. Paul B 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair friend, youth, lord...

For some reason, "fair lord" has been changed to "fair friend". Elsewhere "fair youth" is used. I think we need consistency. Fair Youth seems to be the most common and established term, so I've changed it for consistency. Paul B 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. W.H.

I propose an entirely new article for Mr. W.H.. I realize the sonnets were addressed to him, but so were Venus and Adonis and a few other poems. Adambiswanger1 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There was an entirely separate article on Mr.W.H. until User:The Singing Badger merged it with this one very recently. I prefer the single unified page. Mr. W.H. was not the dedicatee of any other poems. However, some commentators identify him with Henry Wriothsely, who was the dedicatee of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. Paul B 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I had thought the other poems were also addressed to a Mr. W.H.. Adambiswanger1 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I prefer the merged page, too. AndyJones 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mr. W. H." cannot be Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. Henry Wriothesley would be addressed as "Lord H.W." -- see Shakespeare's dedications of "The Rape of Lucrece" and "Venus and Adonis" for two different examples of a real dedication to Southampton actually written by Shakespeare. "Mr. W. H." is not the Fair Youth of the sonnets, but Sir William Harvey, Southampton's step-father, who inherited the contents of the house (and, presumably, the ms. of the sonnets) when Southampton's mother, the Countess, died. Sir William Harvey, correctly addressed as "Master W.H.", was the man who got the sonnets for the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, who also wrote the dedication, again NOT to Southampton but to Harvey. If you look at the dedication, it is signed T.T. Comparing the style of this dedication to the genuine Shakespearean dedications to Southampton is highly instructive. It becomes crystal-clear that the dedication for the sonnets was not written by Shakespeare. (How could Shakespeare refer to himself as "our ever-living poet?" He couldn't. But Thomas Thorpe could, and did.

It's not for us to say what the "truth" of the matter is, but to summarise notable opinions about it. Rowse's views are no more to be presented as "Gospel" than those of any other notable commentator. Paul B 10:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I used the word 'truth.' But I surely don't regard it as some sort of 'dirty word' in discussing historical investigations. For example, I think it is quite clear that the term "Mr. W.H." could not possibly refer to Southampton, for the two main reasons given above: you would never refer to an Earl as "Mr.", and the initials are backwards. Another example is more a question of literary taste: comparing the dedications written by Shakespeare to the dedication written by Thomas Thorpe. They are as different as night and day, or, to put it another way, as easily distinguishable as a fine Cognac and a bottle of Wild Turkey. (Not to mention the easily-observable fact that they are signed by different people.) if you throw in the reference to "our ever-living poet," which could not possibly have been written by Shakespeare, then it seems quite clear that the hypothesis that Shakespeare wrote the dedication to the sonnets must simply be discarded if we want to make progress here. It's contrary to what literary taste tells us, it's contrary to the signatures, and it logically conflicts with that reference to "our ever-living poet." In other words, this hypothesis is false.

You still miss the point. It is not for us to say things like "it is quite clear that the term Mr. WH could not possibly refer to Souhampton". We can explain the argument that certain scholars have adopted ("Rowse argues that..."), but not simply assert it as obvious in the absence of scholarly consensus. I agree with you that Thorpe is the author of the dedication, but if some scholars suggest that Shakespeare may have been responsible for it, we include that view. The added points about the portrait were wholly out of place. We can't make deductions about sexuality from the fact that a lad looks rather girly by modern standards in an Elizabethan portrait. Paul B 14:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And you miss my point. I assert that some things are clearly true, no matter what the "scholarly consensus" may be. As just one example, are you aware that the consensus opinion among Whitman scholars continues to be the ridiculous idea that Walt Whitman was not gay? Even though Gary Schmidgall has produced a long, scholarly work, with diaries, photographs (and even one snap of one of Walt's boyfriends in the nude), the "Whitman establishment" still toes the line that he was heterosexual, or asexual, or PERHAPS bisexual. Why? It may be job security: if the American public ever really got the message that Walt Whitman was "a homosexual" (and attracted to younger men as well), there would undoubtedly be cries of outrage, and demands to have him removed from schoolbooks, anthologies, and libraries. So, no: he will remain "The Good Grey Poet." Is it the job of Wikipedia to do nothing but calmly report on this astonishing snowjob?

In the case of Mr. W.H., I don't think that there is anything like this care for job security, although, now that I have mentioned it, it must be much more comfortable to leave everything about the sonnets "mysterious," and repeatedly assert that they may even be "fiction." That is probably preferable to dealing with the apparent facts: a young bisexual nobleman (Southampton) who became Shakespeare's patron, and the young, married-with-children Shakespeare, who found himself falling in love with the handsome young nobleman, although, as a guess, it was a love without any sexual component. Try reading Sonnet 20 in that light! It's Shakespeare telling Southampton that sex is out of the question. And then revenge, as Southampton begins carrying on with Shakespeare's mistress -- and further revenge, as the notoriously gay Christopher Marlowe enters the fray as Shakespeare's rival. In fact, Marlowe is winning the rivalry, right up to the moment when he is killed -- and read Sonnet 86 with open eyes, as it suddenly refers to the rival poet in the past tense BECAUSE HE IS DEAD.

Your objection to the new portrait discovery baffles me. It sounds like objecting to the discovery of new facts. However, anyone interested in the discovery can read about it at: [previously noted as being at tinyurl.com/z4yx4; actually here ]

The link you provided is not functioning. AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several online reports concerning it. Here is the BBC. [2]

Well, I guess it's true that TinyURL links don't work on Wikipedia, so here is the big one:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2002/04/20/obs.ore.020421.005.pdf

You can assert what you like till you turn purple, but it's not relevant. We summarise the full range of scholarly opinion. If most scholars of Whitman think he wasn't gay, then we can't assert that he was. The fact that you are convinced of it is neither here nor there. We can include the argument as a minority opinion (if that's what it is), but that's as far as we can go. If you knew anything about art history you would know that Elizabethan portrait conventions commonly depict young men with flowing hair and red lips. Read the Art of Limning. Paul B 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not turning purple, and I'm not just "asserting." I am pointing out verifiable historical facts and insisting on the use of logic. Even though I am an English major myself, I have frequently noted that some of my fellow literary scholars are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of objective, verifiable truth. Shakespeare did not write the dedication to the sonnets. Period. You must choose between "Mr. W. H." and "Lord H. W." You cannot eat your cake and have it too. Now I'll just wander off to the Whitman page and see if they are following the fascinating "Paul Barlow rules."

The Paul Barlow rules are in fact Wikipedia rules, viz: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Paul B 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, then I bid you a (temporary) farewell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.146.247.72 (talk • contribs).

And here is a URL for you: http://geocities.com/geoffputerbaugh

[edit] Introduction

"Sonnets 127-154 and 153-154 are written to the poet's mistress expressing his love for her. "

This sentence needs tidied up - it is either tautology or it contradicts itself. Gerry Lynch 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small question

The dedication need to be centered to fit the original printing format. (See [3].) Anyone know how to do that? AdamBiswanger1 05:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's centered now, but the "T.T." signature also needs to be right-aligned and I don't know how to do that. 68.73.121.206 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

'Oddly, the author's name is hyphenated on the title page and on the top of every other page in the book.'

Given that Elizabethan spelling are rarely standardized, what is so odd about the hyphenation? mandel 07:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

I'm not sure which is correct, so I didn't change it, but the beginning of the article claims that Sonnets 1-17 are dedicated to an old man, and that Sonnets 18-126 were to the Fair Youth. Later, the section about the Fair Youth claims that all of Sonnets 1-126 were dedicated to him. Is it verifiable as to whom they are addressed, or is it contradictory for a reason? --HJSoulma 05:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just a bit of vandalism that went unnoticed for a couple of days [4]. Thanks for spotting it. They are all addressed to the youth, but the poet stops telling him to marry after 17. Paul B 10:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)