 |
| Stirred by a painted beauty to his verse |
What better way to enhance the delivery of your message than to self analyse
and provide an alternate version of what your message is. George Wyndham cites
this Sonnet as the first one to address the issue of a rival poet and
predictably take shots at him though at this point it sounds like nothing more
than a general criticism rather than a trolling of a particular rival. At its
greatest significance, it would be satirising of the attitudes towards writing
at the time.
The first line delves straight into the main theme of the Sonnet, the criticism
of the rival writer. Apparently Shakespeare is unlike 'that' guy who's writing,
emotions and flair are aroused by an elegance manufactured by cosmetics,
"... stirred by a painted beauty to his verse." The modern day
equivalent of an attraction based on the magic of make-up. Ain't it nice to get
the opinion of the greatest writer ever on such a hotly debated topic. However,
it could be that the persona is quite simply referring to an actual painting
for example the Monalisa. Whilst such adoration might seem justifiable, the
fact that this would not be in actual fact a real woman would diminish the
supposed authenticity of the emotions expressed thus erasing any sort of clout
the piece of writing might have.
Almost
in lamentation, Shakespeare notes that this good-for-nothing rival goes as far
as to describe a 'fake' muse at par with the Heavens and all else beautiful.
There does seem to be quite a bit of irony whether intended or not in that
Shakespeare has been thus far doing exactly the same thing unchecked.
Admittedly this rival's writing seems on the face of it 'baseless' according to
Shakespeare but is a questionable muse really solid ground to mount a full blown
criticism of one's writing? This Sonnet is starting to feel more like the
result of two squabbling minds; a fallout probably over the Fair Youth.
However, if we are to assume that such behaviour is beneath the persona then
this part of the Sonnet becomes nothing but a ploy to establish his own writing
as the one worth a read, one to be believed and one to ultimately convince the
Fair Youth to share in his love.
So
similar is Shakespeare's writing to this rival poet, "... sun and
moon...April's first-born flow'rs...and all things rare that heaven's air in
this huge rondure hems, " that it is almost certain the two speak of the
same individual. These exact descriptions or similar ones differently phrased
have already been used by Shakespeare in previous Sonnets so this rival might
not be a fraud after all. This whole criticism becomes a question of whether
this rival's love is sincere or he is just trying to trump Shakespeare at wooing.
According to Shakespeare, the latter is more plausible.
In
an unimaginable twist, the persona plays down the beauty of the Fair Youth,
"As any Mother's child" that being his beauty, what would be so
special if he was so ordinary? Quite simply nothing. The whole atmosphere
around the Youth seems to have changed because Shakespeare seeks to be distinguished
from this rival. Is keeping the superlatives in check really better or should
he continue to compare the Fair Youth to all that is extravagant?
Would
you describe your lover in the dullest way possible just to dodge a cliché? William
Shakespeare would.