Is Shakespeare the greatest writer of sonnets?
Printable View
Is Shakespeare the greatest writer of sonnets?
People familiar with my posts around here would probably accuse me of Bardolatry (I am), but my answer to this question is no.
Admittedly, I am coming from a position of not being the biggest fan of the sonnet form in general. Also, some of Shakespeare's sonnets are great - but there are better ones out there. I think Sidney's Astrophil and Stella are a better example of the form than Shakespeare's. Also, for what the form demands, Petrarch does it better than Shakespeare.
Also, the resurrected sonnets, such as Shelley's Ozymandias or Yeats' Leda and the Swan have more going for them.
Shakespeare is a master of weaving together sweet phrases, and the sonnets do reflect this, but they certainly don't represent his greatest strength - exploring the depths of humanity - or even his poetic prowess. Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrete both have greater depth than the sonnets.
Haha I didn't see the last two words of the title and was quickly clicking to post that yes Shakespeare is the greatest writer of all time, then I saw the "of sonnets" and was stopped in my tracks.
There are some fans who will defend all aspects of Shakespeare's writing no matter what (or so it seems sometimes) but I'm not one of them, I've got to admit I prefer the sonnets of John Donne. "The Flea" is so immediate and brings you into the sonnet before you realise it but Shaky's sonnets are like class exercises, you have to keep rereading them, clumsily stopping and starting to make sure are following the author's thread.
Of course we all know there are some gems amongst them as Charles points out, but overall, no, have to admit I wish there some doubt about their authorship because they just don't seem good enough to be by the bard.
I would not put him above Petrarch, but as much as I may like Sidney, I still think it's possible to judge Shakespeare the greatest sonneteer in the English Language. I highly disagree with Charles when he says the sonnets "certainly don't represent his greatest strength - exploring the depths of humanity - or even his poetic prowess". I don't see myself as an adept of bardolatry, but I do think sonnets like 87, 107, 121 and 129 are great examples of the form and say something relevant about the human nature. Although they have the disadvantage of being limited primarily to the very strict models of praising the first patron and approaching the figure of the Dark Lady, I don't think they are really inferior to the narrative poems, even though his best plays are far beyond them in depth and poetic scope. Perhaps he is not better than Sidney or other great English poets who wrote in the form, but I would not reject him as an worthy contender.
Where in this sonnet do we get the sense that there the speaker or subject are more than stock characters? Again, I do not disregard Shakespeare's sonnets, but they are confined. In Petrarch's cycle, we get a sense of the character: the Lover (Petrarch) changes as his relationship with Laura progresses (or doesn't) and after she dies. Heightened as it is, there is a reality to him. In Astrophil and Stella, we are dealing with characters that have depth and dimensions.Quote:
SONNET 87:
Farewell! thou art too dear for my possessing,
And like enough thou know'st thy estimate:
The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;
My bonds in thee are all determinate.
For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
And for that riches where is my deserving?
The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
And so my patent back again is swerving.
Thyself thou gavest, thy own worth then not knowing,
Or me, to whom thou gavest it, else mistaking;
So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,
Comes home again, on better judgment making.
Thus have I had thee, as a dream doth flatter,
In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
The figures in Shakespeare's sonnets do not develop: his sonnets are strictly thematic. ANd for someone who created Hamlet, Lear, Falstaff, Rosalind &c. - I find it odd that he does not infuse this same life into his Poet, or the two supposed subjects.
Yes, I agree the characters in the sonnets are never developed and the poetic voice is completely dettached from the poet. However, the thematic exploration in them is simply marvelous and the absence of a strong presence contributes to an oblique although efficient portrayal of passion.
I think I understand your dislike for them nevertheless. They do suffer from some lack of pathos when compared to Il Canzoniere or Astrophel and Stella, and their confined nature diminishes their value as a collection. While from Petrarch or Sidney one may know the characters and even the story behind them, from his sonnets it would hardly be possible, as the characters are used in them primarily as a model to develop the theme of each individual poem.
When I read them, though, I like to take into consideration that their purpose is different from that of the usual Petrarchan sonnet cycle and that Shakespeare the sonneteer is considerably different from Shakespeare the dramatist. Although his plays are far superior to his sonnets, I still think their merit is considerable enough to make their author a contender to other English masters of the form.
I think you are accurate when suggesting that he did not infuse the same life given to his characters into the subjects of his sonnets. The cause of this, considering the contrast between his use of the form and the Petrarchan model, is indeed curious and prone to much critical discussion in my opinion. Since he himself barely presents in his plays any suggestions of his own inwardness or personal views, I believe it's possible that he may have choosen to follow this same pattern also in his sonnets, although this approach was rather unusual at the time. Whichever was his true motive, to ponder about it may be useful to understand in greater depth Shakespeare's nature as an imaginative writer, as well as the character of his art.Quote:
ANd for someone who created Hamlet, Lear, Falstaff, Rosalind &c. - I find it odd that he does not infuse this same life into his Poet, or the two supposed subjects.
I can divide my relationship with Shakespeare's sonnets into two halves: before reading Helen Vendler's The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets and after. Before, I would've echoed many of the complaints Mr. Darnay is making in this thread; after I realized where that line of thinking goes wrong in appreciating Shakespeare's achievements in these works. I would simply say that, yes, I believe Shakespeare is the greatest writer of sonnets because nobody did so much with the form, showed how many ways it could be manipulated, broken down, structured, infused and deprived of various poetic devices, how many perspectives could be taken on the same theme, how many sub-themes could be derived from one larger theme. Shakespeare pretty much exploits every possibility within the form, and within it finds countless variations and ways of dealing with the same themes over and over again; the breadth is outstanding, and it's a nearly inexhaustible source of inspiration for poets still interesting in utilizing the form.
I simply can't agree with the statement that "for what the form demands, Petrarch does it better than Shakespeare," though to refute it I'd really need more of an elaboration on what that means. To me, the form is really antithetical to sustained characterization and narrative; character, development, climax, resolution, etc. belongs to the temporal world of drama and narrative, not to the personal, private, and spatially/temporally "frozen" realm of the lyric. However, thematic exploration through form against a basic, understood, perpetual backdrop is perfect for the form. That's why I think Shakespeare does it better than either Petrarch or Sidney. I'd certainly agree that not all of his sonnets are on the same level, but the same goes for any prolific writer of sonnets. Certainly the best by Donne, Sidney, Petrarch, Wordsworth, Lowell, Shelley, Milton and so many others are the equal of Shakespeare's best, but I don't think nobody has as many great ones as he does. There's a reason he tends to dominate the "sonnet" sections of anthologies.
There is something in us that craves narrative and characterization, but to insist on foisting that upon a body of work that attempts neither is a bit unfair, IMO. For me, Shakespeare's sonnets are valuable precisely because they alter an alternative to his characterization, drama, and temporal dynamicism of his plays. His sonnets are patches of private thought, reflections upon a situation weighing on his mind, and all of the ebbs and flows of that situation. One can chalk some of this up to the difference between the Petrarchan and Shakespearean sonnet model. The former is built upon conflict (octet) and resolution (sestet). Shakespeare's model, however, is built more upon conflict (octet), development (third quatrain), and summation from perspective (couplet), and it invites a closer relationship between the octet and third quatrain to where one can view it is actually three quatrains interlinked and a concluding couplet meant to find some manner of summary or commentary. There's more stasis and repetition, variations on a theme, in Shakespeare than in Petrarch or Sidney, with great examples being 73 (where the first three quatrains are all saying the same thing with different metaphors, shrinking from season, to a day, to a lone fire that sustains and ends itself) and 60 (with its variant ways in which to view time--successive & linear, arch-like, or as active destroyer-- concluding with a hope to find something that escapes it.
For me, the genius of Shakespeare the dramatist is not any less than that of Shakespeare the sonneteer, but they are very different geniuses. Those looking to find the former in the latter are likely to be disappointed, but those willing to appreciate them on their own terms will find just as many riches, and perhaps even more because they are much subtler and bear more the more readings you're willing to give them. After my initial reading I was not impressed at all, and I also concluded that they were deficient compared with the best examples of others. Reading Vendler and learning to adjust the perspective from which I viewed them (not to mention endeavoring to write my own) allowed me to recognize their greatness and genius as being no less than his best plays.
Thanks Morpheus, you are always good for some excellent Shakespearean insight. I will have to read Vendler's book.
When Shakespeare "broke" the sonnet in Romeo and Juliet (I.v) - I thought that was brilliant. The essence of the form is unrequited love, or at least, approaching but never attained love, yet Shakespeare ends this sonnet with a kiss: it's wonderful.
I will have to re-look at the sonnets, but I don't think the sonnets proper, or the breaking of their rules create the same effect that it does in R&J. What you seem to be suggesting is that Shakespeare presents an almost Quemeau Exercises in Style type work, or variations on a theme, in his Sonnets: I think this is worth looking into and I will do so. However, to me they just seem stagnant, and comparing him to Petrarch or Sidney, his sonnets don't have the same motion; both within themselves and as a whole.
By the way: good to see you around again.
I wouldn't read Shakespeare's sonnets for character either. Shakespeare is late to the show and the vogue of sonnet writing is pretty much over when he decides to write his cycle. One productive way to think of his sonnets is as an experimentation in an already outdated form, where the love object and themes are deliberately different from those of Sidney, Spenser, or Petrarch.
However, it is a mistake to consider antithetical the way Petrarca deals with the sonnet. Even because he predates most users and is main responsable for the form to be widespread over the world. It is with his rules that the sonnet was used, copied, etc. Lyric and narrative were often mixed (Even Shakespeare does it) and they work perfectly well. I think Camoes does the petrarca's act better than petrarca and is a true rival to Shakespeare's sonnets.
I agree that they shouldn't be thought of as antithetical to Petrarch, they are not that far removed. However, there is a noticeable break in the form between Sidney and Shakespeare, the Platonic contemplation of a love object is replaced with a contemplation of theme and art. It's a remodelling of the form that was common by the latter part of the Renaissance, Shakespeare isn't unique in his break from Petrarch. You can see it in the sonnets of Lady Wroth, Sidney's niece, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Camões also seems to break, his narrative work is focused on epic form and of course, every century past, poetry became more lyrical, less narrative, etc. It is enough to agree, the english sonnet is a child and not the same as Petrarch. The narrative construction of Petrarch was quite natural in for centuries, and it is not just sonnets, Dante did something similar on his poetry. It had a lot to do with medieval concept of art. Lyrical poetry was usually united by theme and the theme was a narrative in Petrarch case.
It does not sound so strange, when we see Elisabeth B.Browning sonnets, they are not necessarily planned as a unity, but reflected her romance with Robert (and his view on it also, after all). It is easy to read them with her own story ,even if this is not her genuine intention.
So I managed to get a hold of the Introduction to Vendler's work (I will have to track down the book proper) - and it is certainly compelling. I especially liked the idea that Shakespeare's sonnets are dramas where the words themselves are the characters, and breaks in expected arrangements are as to entrances and exists in his plays. My only hesitation is how much she might just be fitting a cool theory over the sonnets to suit her means - I will have to read her commentaries to see if this does pan out.
Also, the idea of sonnets as secular prayers is a good one: that sonnets are not a monologue nor meant to be the private thoughts that we find in novels, but are meant to be read in the reader's voice and through the reader's perspective.
All in all, her theory that the characters and themes are simply placeholders for the language is something that will get me to reconsider the sonnets.
Glad to hear you've read the intro, Charles. I remember thinking as I read the intro that if the commentaries could follow through with all the claims in her intro then I would be very impressed; needless to say, I was not disappointed. Sonnet after sonnet she introduced to me to things I would've never noticed or thought of in a million years, and I was surprised by how much she supported her interpretations through empirical analysis and observation. IE, she didn't fall prey to what many of the worst modern critics and theorists do of setting out with an a priori framework and then wrenching texts so that they fit into that framework. She really presents the evidence within the sonnets themselves and then builds her interpretations from the words on the page. Because of that, Vendler has really become my ideal critic for poetry, in general. Her books on Keats, Yeats, and Stevens are just as insightful, but the Shakespeare book still strikes me as a kind of magnum opus.
What you said earlier about them being a kind of exercise in style is apropos, but I wouldn't see this as being a negative as many would. Afterall, Bach wrote many of his compositions as such exercises in form and style, sometimes starting with simplicity and ending in complexity (as with the cello sonatas), or going through all of the key signatures (Well-Tempered Clavier), or exploring all of the possibilities of the fugue (Art of the Fugue). IMO, the greatest art tends to come out of such formal experimentation more often than it does out of theme or drama or anything else. Every form has within it certain expressive possibilities, and artists tend to take the material they're given and figure out how to exploit it to the utmost. The reason the sonnet has survived is because it has so many expressive possibilities within the form, and I'd maintain that nobody exploited as fully or diversely as Shakespeare. One can more learn about how to use end-stops and enjambment, abstraction and image, and voltas from reading Sonnet 29 than one could reading the entirety of modern free-verse.
No. Only because his plays tower over anything else he ever wrote, making his sonnets nice, cute, and nice again. Which is to say the sonnet form wasn't Shakespeare at his best, and any writer ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and be judged by his/her best.Quote:
Originally Posted by whitman
People say his plays "tower over (his sonnets)" because people, in general, prefer drama and narrative to lyric. They don't really understand what makes the lyric and sonnet form different than drama and narrative, and what those differences mean to determining genius or lack thereof. As far as comparing his sonnets and plays, the thing is that Shakespeare has a lot of plays that nobody would care about if they didn't have the name Shakespeare attached to them. I'd say at least 1/3 of his plays are rather mediocre, with only patches of the greatness that he displays in his best work. I actually think his sonnets are more consistent, and after he gets away from the opening "procreation" sonnets, I think most all of them are worth attention and analysis, with at least 20-30 of them being amongst the best ever written in English.
Although I think the best of his drama has indeed more to present than his sonnets, I agree with MorpheusSandman when he states the plays are much more uneven as a whole.
I would say that there are only 4-5 poems (depending on your attitude towards Shakespeare's portion of Two Noble Kinsmen) that don't live up to the Shakespeare name. 1/3 is a bit much.
Verona, Henry VI 1-3, Titus, Love's LL, Comedy of Errors, King John, Timon, All's Well, Pericles, Merry Wives, Kinsmen, Henry VIII I think are significantly weaker than his greats. Most of them have moments of greatness, flashes of the greatness yet to come (or that was), but I don't think any are exactly masterpieces, even though many are generally good/solid (I quite enjoy Love's LL for the complex wordplay, but there's not much of interest beyond that). Many of the earlier efforts very much seem to foreshadow what was to come (one can view Comedy of Errors as a trial run for Twelfth Night, eg, or the Henry VIs for the second history tetralogy). Of course, several of them likely had other writers involved (Henry VI and Pericles especially), which contributes to their unevenness.
I'm aware this is all subjective and so there's no real point to arguing....but Comedy of Errors made the list? Really? It is a wonderful play - it is Brecht before there was Brecht - not to mention the leaps he makes with the standard Roman comedy.
Also, while it may not have some of the complexities of the "great" plays - 3 Henry VI and (to a slightly lesser extent) 2 Henry Vi are very enjoyable and you cannot ignore the fact that if it were not for the York tetralogy, there would be no Shakespeare.
I go back and forth when it comes to All's Well. Some of the devices he employs in regards to destroying the genre of comedy are brilliant. Helena is both one of the strongest and weakest female characters, making her very interesting. And the sharp irony running through the entire play (particularly the ending) makes it worthwhile.
I've been reconsidering Pericles recently. The first time I read it I really did not like it - and I still don't care much for the first half of it (which Shakespeare might not have written). The second half has some great moments, and it shows Shakespeare's new experimental phase, laying the groundwork for Cymbeline, Winter's Tale, and Tempest.
I could go on, but again, this is all merely subjective. The point is, as I am beginning to discover with the sonnets, so with the plays; there is almost always more to Shakespeare than what appears on the surface - except for in Verona, which is him finding his feet, Merry Wives, which is him pandering, or Henry VIII, which is him - I don't know...
Well, the plays are more uneaven, but really, the reason why people like his plays better is because his best works are plays. Hamlet, Lear, Othelo... his great plays is what put him up there. His sonnets would not be the same, as good as they are.
I enjoy Comedy of Errors, but I can't help feel that it's merely a warm-up for Twelfth Night, which I find better on every level to the point it make Errors look rather juvenile by comparison. I'm not sure about the "Brecht before Brecht" comment. The Henry VI do has some good drama and some high points, especially the characterizations in II, but there are some plain awkward and silly moments, not to mention the uber-violence of III. I really think they were a strong collaborative effort because they vary wildly in style and quality. All's Well is just one that, even though I've read/seen it 4 times (including BBC and Arkangel productions) I never really remember much of it. There's just nothing that sticks in the mind about it. Pericles, again, has the unevenness of his collaborations. As you say, it's laying the groundwork for his great romances to come, but it's still very inconsistent and transitional.
I don't want to completely throw all of these plays under the bus; I even stated earlier that I felt most of them have some great moments, but they are not consistently brilliant as his masterpieces are. Even at his worst, Shakespeare was incapable of being completely uninteresting, and it's why we can find worth even in his worse productions; but I also think sometimes we give him a pass and tend to forgive the bad moments because we remember the moments of genius. The thing about unbridled geniuses--as opposed to those that are more cautious and careful in their productions--is that it's bound to produce some crap. I don't think any artist is capable of being both prolific and near perfect. I'm reading Byron now, and greatness and awfulness regularly trip side by side. As one contemporary critic said, not everything he wrote checked with his genius before it left his brain and found its way to paper. Well, Shakespeare was much the same, and we should be grateful he wrote as much as he did and threw caution to the wind as much as he did. Such recklessness was probably instrumental in allowing him to produce his towering masterpieces, as those masterpieces are frequently just refinements of ideas he'd flung around beforehand (Henry VI being a clear trial run to the second Henry tetralogy).
Mmmm I read sonnet 29 and thought what a struggling artist! thanks MS.
I think of WS as a poet who had to make his living writing plays. I do not see him as "The Greatest Writer of Sonnets" because there isn't such a thing but he certainly used the form very profoundly. How many great sonnets would anyone have to write to become the Muhammad Ali of sonnet making. One would do me.
I wonder if anyone has tried composing music for "Sonnets To Sundry Notes of Music".
I believe the original statement is mostly that of, personal preference. In my opinion he had some flops and, some glorious masterpieces.