My dad gave me a book of Shakespearian sonnets when I was I was 11 years-old. Call me a romantic, but I thought they were beautiful. If for nothing else, they were beautiful for the language. Sonnet 116 happens to be one of the poems that I am most familiar with. I have always thought it was a nice sentiment... perhaps if only in theory. Sense and Sensibility anyone?
I prefer sonnet 130 which seems far more realistic.
"I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I htink my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare."
He's not fooling himself about her lack of traditional beauty and therefore loves her in a "rare" way. I like the thought of someone knowing all my faults but loving me still. However, I don't know that I would want anyone to write about me that way in black and white. Not the most flattering thing and definitely not romantic in the conventional sense.
So back to sonnet 116 which is how most people would idealize love.
"Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Withing his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom."
That time or distance does not alter one's affection is not a new idea. But I think it is more of a "should not" than a "does not". And I like that Shakespeare is writing in terms of absolutes. Love cannot be broken. Nothing can shake love. Love can outweather any storm. And wouldn't that be nice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment