LRB | Vol.
20 No. 2 dated 22 January 1998 | Tom Paulin
In the Workshop
Tom Paulin
The Art of Shakespeare's
Sonnets by Helen Vendler | Harvard, 672 pp, £23.50
Shakespeare's Sonnets by William Shakespeare ed. Katherine Duncan-Jones
| Arden, 503 pp, £7.99
Recently I was teaching a poem
by Yeats that has always reminded me of a stretched sonnet. 'In Memory of Eva
Gore-Booth and Con Markiewicz' has an octave of 20 lines and a sestet of 12
lines, but as Yeats was not interested in the sonnet form (he wrote only one
sonnet), the comparison is probably subjective. The poem begins:
The light of evening, Lissadell,
Great windows open to the south,
Two girls in silk kimonos, both
Beautiful, one a gazelle.
Eight lines later, Yeats gives a reprise of the opening:
Many a time I think to seek
One or the other out and speak
Of that old Georgian mansion, mix
Pictures of the mind, recall
'That table and the talk of youth,
Two girls in silk kimonos, both
Beautiful, one a gazelle.
Immediately after this, at the beginning of the elongated second section of
the poem, Yeats writes:
Dear Shadows, now you know it all,
All the folly of a fight
With a common wrong or right.
That line 'Dear shadows, now you know it all,' I have always found almost unbearably
emotional, and standing in front of a class of undergraduates I again wondered
why this was. Very early the next morning I woke with the answer: the line reproduces
in a slightly different pattern the o sounds in windows/open/south in
the second line. The two young women are shadows now, but in saying so Yeats
brings back his earlier line which blazed its light behind their silky young
bodies. Then in the very last line of the poem - 'Bid me strike a match and
blow' - he softens its angry, cornered, very Protestant destructiveness by concluding
the poem with a final o sound that takes us back to the heaven of that
opening quatrain. It's like watching someone turn from blowing vigorously into
a fire in order to breathe gently against a dandelion clock. Realising the subtlety
of Yeats's music, I began to imagine a critical account of his or any poet's
work which would jettison all earnest explication of the text - meaning, paraphrasable
content, social and historical situation - and concentrate entirely on sound,
cadence, metre, rhyme, form. A critical study that would be true to Yeats's
dictum 'Words alone are certain good.' And then I began to wonder where I could
find such a book.
Helen Vendler's long study of the art of Shakespeare's Sonnets, is that purely
aesthetic study of poetic language in action, and it begins appropriately with
this statement: 'I assume that a poem is not an essay, and that its paraphrasable
prepositional content is merely the jumping-off place for its real work . . .
I do not regard as literary criticism any set of remarks about a poem which
would be equally true of its paraphrasable content.' Taking issue with a recent
editor of the Sonnets, John Kerrigan, she points to his lack of interest
in the linguistic variation in sonnet 129, and says he takes 'a single-minded
expository view of the poem, as though it were a self-consistent sermon'. For
Vendler, the verbal imagination's true intent is 'always to make a chain
of interesting signifiers, with the 'message' tucked in as best the poet
can'. And she says that because many readers prefer to think of the Sonnets
as 'discursive prepositional statements', rather than as 'situationally motivated
speech acts', we remain condemned to a 'static view of any given sonnet'. Gently
criticising Stephen Booth's account of the contrary pulls in sonnet 146, she
that grants that his discussion is 'interesting', but finds it too preoccupied
'with meaning alone'. The editorial and critical accounts published over the
last thirty years do not pay enough attention to the Sonnets as poems.
Putting the intellectual and expository to one side, Vendler says that she is
more concerned with the aesthetic experience we encounter 'temporally' as we
read the sonnet. We encounter that experience in a particularly structured way,
because, as she marvellously shows, each sonnet has what she terms a 'couplet
tie' - the words that appear in the body of the sonnet (lines 1-12) which are
repeated in the couplet (13-14). By 'words', she means 'a word and its variants':
for example, lives, live and outlive count as one word. Often Shakespeare uses
a more complex form of repetition than the couplet tie. In sonnet 7, the first
quatrain (Q1) contains the word looks, Q2 the word looks again. Q3 the word
look and the couplet the word unlooked-on. She calls the root word - in this
case, look - a 'key word', and registers it at the end of her commentary on
each sonnet. The couplet tie which she also prints at the end of each commentary,
of course contains the key word. So far so necessarily technical, but let us
see how it applies in practice in her discussion of sonnet 15 which, as with
every sonnet, she prints both in the original Quarto form and in her own modernised
version:
When I confider euery thing that growes
Hold in oerfection but a little moment.
That this huge ftage prefenteth nought but fhowes
Whereon the Stars in fecret influence comment.
When I perceiue that men as plants increafe,
Cheared and checkt euen by the felfe-fame skie:
Vaunt in their youthfull fap, at height decreafe,
And were their braue ftate out of memory.
Then the conceit of this inconftant ftay,
Sets you moft rich in youth before my fight,
Where waftfull time debateth with decay
To change your day of youth to fullied night,
And all in war with Time for loue of you.
As he takes from you, I ingraft you new.
When I consider every thing that grows
Holds in perfection but a little moment,
That this huge stage presenteth nought but shows
Whereon the stars in secret influence comment;
When I perceive that men as plants increase,
Cheerd and checked even by the selfsame sky,
Vaunt in their youthful sap, at height decrease,
And wear their brave state out of memory:
Then the conceit of this inconstant stay
Sets you most rich in youth before my sight,
Where wasteful Time debateth with Decay
To change your day of youth to sullied night,
And all in war with Time for love of you,
As he takes from you, I ingraft you new.
The last five lines, she points out, are 'sung under the sign of the sullying
scythe' and they remain a hymn to the human 'love-syllable you', which
is the 'conceit of impermanence':
Sets YOU most rich in YOUTH before my sight,
Where wasteful Time debateth with decay
To change YOUr day of YOUth to sullied night;
And all in war with Time for love of YOU,
As he takes from YOU, I ingraft YOU new.
The couplet rhyme, mimetically and phonetically additive to resemble 'ingrafting',
is 'YOU'/'YOU new'. Looking at the Quarto text, she remarks that she has no
doubt that 'night', a noun that could be characterised by many possible adjectives,
is 'sullied' because the young are youthfull and time is wastefull.
And she further notes that in the Quarto spelling, the old-style s of
sull- even resembles the f of -full. So this sonnet is bound together
by one of those 'alliterative, assonantal and anagrammatic semantic strings'
in which Shakespeare delights: 'On the stage influenced by stars
is our mortal state making inconstant stay; waste
debates decay to create change
of a day. ' By bringing out the acoustic texture of the sonnet, Vendler
makes it sensuously alive, and I would only suggest that part of the linguistic
fun of the opening three lines is the way in which Shakespeare duplicates the
o in grows, in Holds and moment before allowing
the pejorative sense of shows to burst the round sign's fragile perfection
like a bubble. This crossing out of the sound is caught up ten lines later in
'most rich in youth' where it works to subvert the obvious sense of the phrase
by placing it under a type of sonic erasure. This is an effect I only noticed
because of Vendler's stringent close readings of each sonnet. She concludes
her account of sonnet 15 by pointing out: 'KEY WORD: YOU (It could be argued
that this word is not present in Ql, but I suggest it is phonetically hiding
in 'HUge', chosen precisely for its anticipation of YOU.)'
As is evident from the layout, this is a critical book which adopts the form
of a handbook or reader's guide, and in her Introduction Vendler says that her
Commentary is not intended to be read straight through: rather, it is 4 intended
as a work of 'writerly scrutiny' which those interested in the Sonnets,
or students of the lyric, or 'poets hungry for resource', may want to browse
in. She has included a recording of some of the Sonnets read aloud, because
the three other readings available are done by actors (who???) who, typically
I would say, speak the lines with constant mis-emphases and ignore the inner
antitheses and parallels. The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets is therefore
not a conventional critical book and though I read it straight through at a
steady rate of a hundred pages a day, it is better dipped into, but dipped into
by overlapping stages. Reading it is like being offered a huge plate of oysters,
or doing a Spot-the-Ball competition, or playing obsessively with a Rubik's
Cube that always comes out right after the effort of following a tight technical
argument accompanied often by a detailed diagram. Because it does not offer
an argument that develops chapter on chapter, any account of it must explicate
the initial approach and then consider a number of moments out of a multitude
where the critic directs her formidable mind to the game these sonnets play.
It is Vendler's supreme critical virtue that she can write from inside a poem,
as if she is in the workshop witnessing its making. Her manner of setting the
Quarto next to the modernised text makes the experience of reading the sonnets
a 5 new and radical one: we read each poem twice and then we realise that actually
Shakespeare wrote 154 sonnets, each of which has been rewritten by subsequent
editors. Perhaps the closest analogue to this sense of never quite stepping
into the same river twice is reading the first editions of John Clare's volumes
and then reading the same poems in the unpunctuated original manuscript versions
Eric Robinson and his fellow editors print in the big Oxford edition of Clare.
A good example is sonnet 19:
Deuouring time blunt thou the Lyons pawes,
And make the earth deuoure her owne fweet brood,
Plucke the keene teeth from the ficrce Tygers yawes,
And burne the long liu'd Phænix in her blood,
Make glad and forry feafons as thou fleet'ft,
And do what ere thou wilt fwift-footed time
To the wide world and all her fading fweets:
But I forbid thee one moft hainous crime,
O carue not with thy howers my loues faire brow,
Nor draw noe lines there with thine antique pen,
Him in thy courfe vntainted doe allow,
For beauties patterne to fucceding men.
Yet doe thy worft ould Time difpight thy wrong.,
My loue fhall in my verfe euer liue young.
Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws,
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood,
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws,
And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood,
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time,
To the wide world and all her fading sweets:
But I forbid thee one most heinous crime,
0 carve not with thy hours my love's fair brow,
Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen;
Him in thy course untainted do allow
For beauty's pattern to succeeding men.
Yet do thy worst, old Time: despite thy wrong,
My love shall in my verse ever live young.
Reading the Quarto text with its furred type, I catch an accent which I once
heard many years ago reproduced in a television documentary where John Barton
coached members of the RSC in the 'correct' pronunciation of Shakespearean English:
the accent sounded like a mixture of the Ambridge, Birmingham and Ulster accents.
In 19, we hear not 'phoenix' but Phaenix, not 'heinous' but hainous,
not 'old' but ould. Elsewhere there are other sounds still current in
Ulster - cowld for 'cold', hower for 'hour' - and words such as
brave for 'fine, good, bold, nonchalant', or miching for 'playing
truant'. Hearing that deep guttural accent - an accent made deeper by the collied
print of the Quarto text - I register the fourth line like this: 'And barn the
lane-liv'd Phayinix in har bludd.'
Reading the modernised equivalent beside it - 'And burn the long-lived Phoenix
in her blood' - is rather like emerging onto a trim lawn where tea and cucumber
sandwiches are being served. The Quarto text sounds like Stephen Rea, the modernised
one like Gielgud or Prince Charles. The same or very similar modernised texts
in Katherine Duncan-Jones's scholarly and accessible new edition seem perfectly
presentable on their own, but in Vendler are often destabilised by their immediate
adjacency to the Quarto texts. Duncan-Jones prints 'And burn the long-lived
Phoenix in her blood;' and includes some of the Quarto spellings (not Phaenix,
though) below her text. I agree with her punctuation of the line, but feel very
strongly that Arden's general editorial policy ought to have been broadened
to include the Quarto texts (an index of first lines would be a help too).
In her commentary on this sonnet, Vendler suggests that the 'murderous vitality'
of the opening quatrain issues from the Shakespeare 4, Pr of the tragedies,
while the rest of the poem with its mentions of 'swift-footed Time' and 'fading
sweets' fits more equably in the elegiac mode. This type of comment is an essential
part of what I can only call the dramatic experience of reading Vendler: a few
pages earlier she takes sonnet 18's famous opening line - 'Shall I compare thee
to a Summers day?' - and in a lovely run of exact adjectives worthy of Hazlitt
remarks that it is 'gentle, light, innocuous, dulcet'. Commenting on sonnet
19, she notes that the imaginative effort is spent on 'the great hard words',
with their frequent trochaic or spondaic emphasis: blunt, pans,
brood, pluck, keen, teeth, tiger's jaws,
burn, blood. And she then points out that 'Devouring Time
. . . the earth devour . . . with thy hours' tolls
the progression that turns devouring Time to swift-footed Time and then
to old Time. The effect of this patterning is to jettison 'all values'
except beauty's pattern, young in verse. Prompted by this highly sensitive analysis,
I would add that in the last line the letter v is triumphantly asserted
so that we get the idea of vitality expressed in an almost tactile fashion.
Here, the modernised line -'My love shall in my verse ever
live young' - makes this almost sculpted effect visually more apparent.
It is a strong theme in Vendler's Commentary that Shakespeare delights in anagrams,
graphic or phonetic puns, and in what she calls 'graphic overlaps': stars,
astrology, constant and art. In sonnet 7,
for example, the central image of the sun's Car generates 'anagramatically
scrambled' cars elsewhere in gracious, sacred
and tract. The ageing of the sun in the poem seems to generate
homage, age, golden pilgrimage.
The poem also suppresses the word sun until the closing word of the last line
- 'Unlooked on diest unless thou get a son' - leaps off the page with complete
inevitability. The sun/son theme runs throughout the sequence, nowhere more
pervasively than in sonnet 33:
Fvll many a glorious morning haue I feene,
Flatter the mountaine tops with foueraine eie,
Kiffing with golden facc the meddowes greene;
Guilding pale ftreames with heauenly alcumy:
Anon permit the bafeft cloudes to ride,
With ougly rack on his celeftiall face,
And from the for-'orne world his vifage hide
Stealing vn eene to weft with this difgrace:
Euen fo my Sunne one early morne did fhine,
With all triumphant fplendor on my brow,
But out alack, he was but one houre mine,
The region cloude hath mask'd him from me now.
Yet him for this, my loue no whit difdaineth,
Suns of the world may ftaine, whe heauens fun ftainteh.
Full many a glorious morning have I seen
Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,
Kissing with golden face the meadows green,
Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy;
Anon permit the basest clouds to ride
With ugly rack on his celestial face,
And from the f6rlorn world his visage hide,
Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace:
Even so my sun one early morn did shine
With all triumphant splendour on my brow;
But out alack, he was but one hour mine,
The region cloud hath masked him from me now.
Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth,
Suns of the world may stain, when heaven's sun staineth.
Katherine Duncan-Jones's notes are as always helpful: glossing the word ride,
she says in a rather Yeatsian manner that the clouds are 'upstart cavaliers,
beggars on horseback; as they cross the sun's face they may also figure lines
or wrinkles: cf. Fr. se rider, to become wrinkled'. She also notes that
rack which is 'a mass of clouds driven before the wind in the upper air',
is cognate with 'wrack' or 'wreck', suggesting an obstruction that is at once
'ruinous and fragile'. And she notes the internal rhyme with alack in
line 11. Elsewhere, she points out various numerological moments (the total
of the 'dark lady' sonnets is 28, which reflects male disgust with the lunar,
menstrual, cycle alluded to in their number, and I would guess that the number
33 is chosen as a trinal number which picks up the reference to 'heaven's sun'
- i.e. Christ. Vendler demonstrates how this sonnet displays a 'progressive
acceleration' of its narrative from eight to four lines to one line, and she
includes a diagram to demonstrate this shrinking formal movement:

Yet him for this my love no disdaineth:

Although Vendler's diagrams aren't always helpful, this one does expose the
technical playfulness of the form. Unlike Duncan-Jones, she tends not to make
detailed links with Shakespeare's plays, but I believe it is necessary to set
two passages from Richard II and Henry IV Part I next to this
sonnet - which, as Vendler says, is the first to remark on 'a true flaw' in
the friend.
In Act III of Richard II, Bolingbroke and his party confront Richard
at Flint Castle in Wales:
See, see, King Richard doth himself appear,
As doth the blushing discontented sun
From out the fiery portal of the East,
When he perceives the envious clouds are bent
To dim his glory, and to stain the track
Of his bright passage to the Occident.
The Duke of York replies:
looks he like a king: behold his eye,
bright as is the eagle's, lightens forth
Controlling majesty. Alack, alack for woe,
That any harm should stain so fair a show.
The link between these speeches and sonnet 33 seems clear: track and
alack, alack point to the rack/alack internal rhyme,
partly because 'track' contains 'rack'. This would mean that in the sonnet Shakespeare
- the Jacobean Shakespeare, Duncan-Jones convincingly argues -is both remembering
lines he wrote perhaps ten years earlier in the reign of Elizabeth, and also
recalling performances by the actors who spoke his lines. He seems to be drawing
on nature for his conceit, but equally he is drawing on the created nature of
his own art. The young man is a flawed, brilliant royal actor, and he is also
an actor playing that actor. A performance of the play was subsidised by the
Essex conspirators on the eve of their rebellion in 1601. Essex, like Richard,
had returned from a military campaign in Ireland, though from the conspirators'
point of view what counted was the justified deposition of an annointed monarch.
The other, I think important, and as I realise from Kerrigan's superb notes,
often remarked, connection with the history plays is the way that cool, sly
verb permit picks up Prince Hal's speech after he has been left alone
by Falstaff and Poins:
I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world.
The young man in the Sonnets is by implication as ruthless, manipulative
and detached as Hal, and Shakespeare's complicated feelings for him are given
a deliberately formulaic shape in the last couplet's apparently forgiving statement.
But if we apply the sun/son pun and read 'heaven's sun' as Christ then an abyss
of contradictions is opened up, because Christ is stainless. Therefore sons
of the, world can never 'stain', a word that appears three times in Richard
II, and three in Henry IV Part 1. This is to argue the necessity
of analysing the intertextuality of the Sonnets, but it is Vendler's
ambition to concentrate on the complex dazzle of their linguistic surfaces.
One of my favourite moments is her discussion of sonnet 29.
When in disgrace with Fortune and men's eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possessed,
Desiring this man's art, and that man's scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state
(Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth) sings hymns at heaven's gate,
For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
The defective key
word is state (missing in Q2, which describes 'the state of others, not
his own'), and the couplet tie is state (2,10,14) and sing (-s)
[-sing] (9,11,12). It's in her analysis of this last word or sound that
Vendler's method produces a remarkable coup: she shows that in 'the most joyous
play' of the poem, what she terms the 'disgruntled present participles' - wishing,
desiring, with their 'wrong' arrangement of letters - suddenly give way
to new present participles where the letters are arranged 'right'. That is,
despising and arising appear and lead to sing. What we hear is sing,
sing, sing: the poem 'fairly carols'. And she concludes her commentary
by showing that even the first line of the couplet (in brings
- 'rings!') makes the air resound; but at the end, in the scorned kings,
the word sing lies scrambled again, as it did in wishing and desiring.
As he integrates the world of kings with the world of nature, locates his superlative
friend, and, as a lark, finds a listening heaven, the poet rediscovers an integrated
mental state.
This analysis is wonderfully alive to the quick of the poem, to those
subliminal tricks which sounds and signs play on the reader, and it shows Shakespeare's
art triumphing over his despair at the 'art' and 'scope' of writers he was in
competition with. This approach ought to be as common in literary criticism
as the analysis of imagery and linguistic ambiguity, but what we are witnessing
is a writerly responsiveness to sound and the sheer texture of words.
One example of Vendler's tactile sense of language is her account of
the way in which the word badges in the closing couplet of sonnet 44
- 'Receiving nought by elements so slow/But heavy tears, badges of either's
woe' - picks up the dj sound in injurious and jump,
which appear earlier in the poem. Reading that last couplet, I was struck by
how heavy badges sounded, and began to perceive how the acoustic adhesiveness
certain words acquire resembles a form of memory. The b sounds in the
couplet pick up earlier sounds (there are -two previous uses of but)
and pass them on to badges. so does another dj sound in large,
and so do the several ah sounds. The result is that badges becomes like
a particle of especially dense matter, as if concentrating in itself the weoght
of the whole poem. Vendler states that there is no couplet tie, and it therefore
follows that there can be no key word or words, but a case could be made for
looking at the sonnet like this:
If the dull substance of my flesh were thought,
Injurious distance should not stop my way,
For then despite of space I would be brought,
From limits far remote, where thou dost stay.
No matter then although my foot did stand
Upon the farthest earth removed from thee,
For nimble thought can jump both sea and land
As soon as think the place where he would be.
But ah, thought kills me that I am not thought,
to leap large lengths of miles when thou art gone,
But that, so much of earth and water wrought,
I must attend time's leisure with my moan,
Receiving naught by elements so slow
But heavy tears, badges of either's woe.
The b, a, d, dj and uz sounds that make up
badges are spread over the preceding quatrains, so that the word acts
like the vanishing-point in a perspectival drawing. This explains, I believe,
the scaly weight of the word badges (I'm tempted to see a kind of venereal
pun here - 'bad juice' - but that may be over ambitious.
There is a similar effect in the phrase from sonnet 40, 'lascivious grace',
which Vendler calls one of those 'striking phrases'. with which the sonnets
are sprinkled: phrases which have 'a greater aesthetic effect than we can account
for at first. It occurs in the final couplet -'Lascivious grace, in whom all
ill well shows,/Kill me with spites yet we must not be foes' - and it 'skirts
blasphemy' because the moral import of the words ill and well
which immediately follow it brings 'religious grace into earshot'. The
fallen state of the 'infatuated speaker' is shown by the way he has made the
positive word grace the noun which 'conveys essence', while the condemnatory
word lascivious remains only a modifying adjective. Where the phrase
'graceful lasciviousness' would show a speaker properly defining the relation
between 'graceful show and lascivious substance', 'lascivious grace' presents
a speaker 'helplessly enthralled by beauty'. The phrase is conspicuous because
it contains the only sophisticated polysyllable in a couplet of monosyllables,
but we need also to answer the question Vendler poses: why does lascivious
fall on the ear like something expected? Here, we need to look at the phrase
in context:
Take all my loves, my love, yea take them all;
What hast thou then more than thou hadst before?
No love, my love, that thou mayst true love call,
All mine was thine, before thou hadst this more.
Then if for my love thou my love receivest,
I cannot blame thee, for my love thou usest;
But yet be blamed, if thou this self deceivest
By wilful taste of what thy self refusest.
I do forgive thy robb'ry, gentle thief,
Although thou steal thee all my poverty;
And yet love knows it is a greater grief
To bear love's wrong than hate's known injury.
Lascivious grace, in whom all ill well shows,
Kill me with spites yet we must not be foes.
What happens is that lascivious echoes the 'trisyllables of evildoing'
that make up the amphibrachic rhyme words receivest and deceivest
of the second quatrain (an amphibrac is a trisyllabic foot: x / x). Thus the
us sounds in refusest and deceivest and the see-ves
in the latter anticipate the siv-us sounds in lascivious. As Vendler
remarks, it is by such 'confirmatory coffin nails' that correspondences are
hammered home. But as she points out, grace has some hooks of its own,
not only in its initial consonants and vowels which remind us of the greater
grief that grace has caused, but also its possession
of the same 'satanic hiss' that exists in receivest, usest,
deceivest, refusest and, inevitably,
lascivious. For Vendler, the phrase 'lascivious
grace' is the 'helpless unifying summary' of all the divisions which precede
it.
What is so exciting about this approach to poetry is its manner of locking onto
the way in which sound, as opposed to image, patterns work. And, of course,
there is often a playful wit shaping these effects,- as in the 'erotic'use of
p sounds in sonnet 98 which reach their 'phallic apogee' in sonnet 51:
My soul doth tell my body that he may
Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason,
But rising at thy name doth point out thee
As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride,
He is contented thy poor drudge to be,
To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side.
Noting that the 'unstoppability of orgasm' is imitated here, Vendler suggests
that detumescence is represented not only by the semantic decline' from proud
to poor, but also from tr-iu-mph to dr-u-dge, words whose
initial double consonants, triple final letters and common u in the middle
make them 'some sort of graphic cousins'. Again and again, I want to haul out
examples of this supreme critical imagination at work, but it should be apparent
that criticism of the Sonnets, and by extension, critical accounts of
poetry, will never be the same again. This is an epic, innovatory study which
ought to mark a new beginning for criticism.
In reading the Sonnets right through for the first time in many years,
I became fascinated and puzzled by Shakespeare's obsessive use of the adjective
sweet. a word which is only effective if it is used very sparingly. It's used
frequently in both Richard II and the two parts of Henry IV, and
Katherine Duncan-Jones notes a particular interesting conjunction of sonnet
and historical drama in 108, which begins:
What's in the brain that ink may character
Which hath not figured to thee my true spirit?
What's new to speak, what new to register,
That may express my love, or thy dear merit?
Nothing, sweet boy . . .
This, the editor notes, is the only time the youth is so addressed, though the
epithet sweet has often been applied to him in other forms: 'thy sweet self'
(1), 'thy sweet self'4), 'sweet semblance' (13), 'sweetest bud' (35), 'Thine
own sweet argument' (38). Noting that the phrase 'sweet boy' caused some earlier
editors embarrassment (one altered it to 'sweet love', another to 'sweet joy'),
she points out that in the last scene of Henry IV, Part 2, the phrase
occurs again when Falstaff addresses the newly-crowned Henry V:
FALSTAFF: God save thee, my sweet boy!
KING: My Lord Chief Justice, speak to that vain man.
CHIEF JUSTICE: Have you your wits? Know you what 'tis you speak?
FALSTAFF: My king! My Jove! I speak to thee, my heart!
KING: I know thee not, old man. Fall to thy prayers.
In sonnet 108, immediately after the phrase 'sweet boy', Shakespeare says: 'but
yet, like prayers divine,/I must each day say o'er the very same,/Counting no
old thing old.' Like the rhymes on alack in sonnet 33 and in its source in Richard
II, the passage of dialogue from Henry IV, Part 2 strengthens the
associative link between Shakespeare and Falstaff, the young man and the newly
crowned king. Shakespeare is dramatising the abject nature of his love as foolish,
ridiculous, self-pitying, Falstaffian, while the object of that love is totally
ruthless, completely confident, his absolute superior in every way. The sun
has broken free of its base contagious clouds. Shakespeare tends to kick the
word sweet around like an adjectival football, rather in the way we sometimes
say someone is a very 'nice' person and mean that they have shallow, calculating,
good manners. Duncan-Jones also glosses the phrase 'compound sweet' in sonnet
125 in a particularly interesting way:
Were't ought to me I bore the canopy,
With my extern the outward honouring,
Or laid great bases for eternity,
Which proves more short than waste or ruining?
Have I not seen dwellers on form and favour
Lose all, and more, by paying too much rent,
For compound sweet forgoing simple savour,
Pitiful thrivers, in their gazing spent?
No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,
And take thou my oblation, poor but free,
Which is not mixed with seconds, knows no art,
But mutual render, only me for thee.
Hence, thou suborned informer, a true soul
When most impeached, stands least in thy control.
Shakespeare is contrasting the constancy of private love with the complex dangers
of court favour, and Duncan-Jones suggests that the image of 'compound sweet'
could most naturally be applied to Elizabeth's favourite, the Earl of Essex,
who had been rewarded in 1590 with the 'farm of sweet wines' - the right to
charge tax on all imported sweet wines. As well as suggesting a sweet aristocratic
food, or medicine, the phrase 'compound sweet' may 'beguiling or attractive
financial agreement', what we now term a 'sweetener'. The adjective therefore
carries associations with political power, favouritism, corruption and danger
- it is an apparently lyric term which has been given a negative public spin.
It's here that I must express a reservation about a statement Vendler makes
in her Introduction:
How are the Sonnets being written about nowadays? And why should I add
another book to those already available? I want to do so because I admire the
Sonnets, and wish to defend the high value I put on them, since they
are being written about these days with considerable jaundice. The spheres from
which most of the current criticisms are generated are social and psychological
ones. Contemporary emphasis on the participation of literature in a social matrix
balks at acknowledging how lyric, though it may refer to the social,
remains the genre that directs its mimesis toward the performance of
the mind in solitary speech. Because lyric is intended to be voiceable
by anyone reading it, in its normative form it deliberately strips away most
social specification (age, regional location, sex, class, even race). A social
reading is better directed at a novel or a play: the abstraction desired by
the writer of, and the willing reader of, normative lyric frustrates the mind
that wants social fictions or biographical revelations.
This needs to be said in order to clear the ground for Vendler's brilliantly
focused way of reading the Sonnets. but these lyrics do not seek to shake
off the dirt of the public world - often they wish they could, but the ugly
dangerousness in the youth's personality and in some of his actions cannot be
avoided and is in any case part of his attraction. I should add that I do not
agree with Vendler's rejection of Andrew Motion's historicist view of Keats's
poems, in her review of his biography of Keats (LRB, 16 October 1997),
and believe that 'To Autumn' is on one level a great political poem which elegises
those who were massacred at Peterloo.
Among the many appealing features of Duncan-Jones's edition are the sudden epiphanic
connections she makes with, what we know of Shakespeare's life. Commenting on
the line in sonnet 62 where Shakespeare looks in his mirror and is shown 'me
myself indeed,/Beated and chopped with tanned antiquity', she notes that in
Hamlet the Gravedigger says that tanners skins become toughened with
their trade. Drawing on an earlier scholar, E.K. Chambers, she suggests that
since Shakespeare's father was a 'whittawer', who prepared leather for gloves,
he may well have believed that his own skin had been affected by this process.
On the opening of sonnet 71 - 'No longer mourn for me when I am dead/Than you
shall hear the surly sullen bell/Give warning to the world that I am fled' -
she notes that it would have been in the power of the dead speaker's heirs to
commission a prolonged tolling of the bell, as Shakespeare appears to have done
for the burial of his actor brother Edmund in St Saviour's, Southwark on 31
December 1607, paying 20 shillings for 'a forenoone knell of the great bell'.
Such details help to anchor the lyrics empirically and, as Thomas Hardy endlessly
shows, such random, discrete facts are essential to our need to imagine experience.
Annotating Shakespeare's meditation in sonnet 68 on ageing and the means used
to disguise it, Duncan-Jones notes that wigs and false hair must often have
been in his thoughts, both because he himself was a 'bald actor', and also because
in 1604 he lodged in Silver Street, the centre of the wig trade. Falstaff, the
Prince tells him, has a 'pitiful bald crown', so Shakespeare may also be thinking
of this moment, which occurs at the beginning of the scene within a scene where
Hal and Falstaff enact Hal's imminent meeting with his father (II.iv), and Falstaff
pleads with Hal not to banish 'sweet jack Falstaff'. Banish plump Jack, he says,
and banish all the world. The future king playing his own father replies: '1
do, I will.' When we're hurt or anxious in love or friendship, we tend to dramatise
our feelings, to invent characters for them, and Shakespeare in love returns
frequently to the friendship - the unequal exploitative matiness - between fat
jack and cold Hal. Their relationship involves role -playing, and because actors
took on their parts, the allusiveness in the Sonnets is a multi-layered
mix of fictionality and authentic emotion. Where does one end and the other
begin?
One of the most authentic moments occurs in 94, a sonnet which Empson computed
to have 4096 'possible movements of thought' (he was also a mathematician so
he must be right). The poem could be addressed to the Machiavellian Prince Hal:
They that have power to hurt, and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmoved, cold, and to temptation slow:
They rightly do inherit heaven's graces,
And liusband nature's riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others, but stewards of their excellence.
The summer's flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die,
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
As Duncan-Jones notes, expense plays on refraining from the emission
of semen, a subject that occurs in other sonnets, and which here is a metaphor
for a particular kind of highly controlled and controlling personality. The
way sweet chimes with weed, deeds, weeds means that
that adjective is tainted or stained in that final lethal couplet which speaks
with a chill definitive contempt. Duncan-Jones points out that the last line
occurs in what she terms an 'anonymous play', The Reign of King Edward the
Third, which was first published in 1596. Some scholars have argued that
this play was actually written by Shakespeare, and in 1996 Eric Sams published
an edition in which he argues - convincingly, I think - that it is by Shakespeare.
In the second act of Edward III, the Earl of Warwick, totally against
his will, but at the King's request, attempts to persuade his daughter, the
Countess of Salisbury, to become the King's mistress and 'secret love'. She
refuses and Warwick replies:
A spacious field of reasons could I urge
between his glory, daughter, and thy shame
that poison shows worst in a golden cup
dark night seems darker by the lightning flash
lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds
and every glory that inclines to sin
the shame is treble by the opposite.
Duncan-Jones leaves the question of Shakespeare's authorship of Edward III
open, but I think that in sonnet 94 he is again recalling his own lines -lines
which imagine evil and corruption in a king. He is redressing an unequal balance
of power in his relationship with the young man by recalling this passage in
a manner that sounds decisively damning, except that Edward, the 'lascivious
King', as the Countess calls him, repents of his desire in a speech to the Countess
which begins: 'Even by that power I swear that gives me now/the power to be
ashamed, of myself.' That repeated noun power is another associative
link with sonnet 94, and points to the theme of personal and social power which
runs through the sonnets. The words base and basest pick up the
'base clouds' in sonnet 34 and the 'base court' the sun of Richard 11 descends
into, as well as the 'base contagious clouds' which Hal, sun-like, permits to
smother his beauty from the world. Something intense, dangerous, complex and,
from Shakespeare's point of view, awful and disgusting is going on, and in her
account of the squeamish, overwhelmingly male accounts of the Sonnets,
Duncan-Jones wryly quotes John Kerrigan, who in his edition speaks of 'the sonnets
to the youth' as arising out of 'comradely affection in the literature of friendship'.
Kerrigan goes on to dismiss what he terms 'innumerable crackpot theories' about
the poet's life and love-life - fantasies', he says, in which the Sonnets
have played a large part. It is Duncan-Jones's intention as scholar and critic
to challenge the issue of sexuality which Kerrigan and other editors have consistently
side-stepped, and to show how there are references in the poems to menstrual
bleeding, semen, cunts, erections, detumescence, female flesh as a sexual commodity,
syphilis and orgasms. She also points to the 'strongly mysogynistic bias' which
is hinted at early ge on in the sequence, and which becomes dominant in the
Dark Lady section. This is an edition which uniquely makes the Sonnets
issue from the body's moods as well as from the mind's. This of course is a
Cartesian distinction which I do not mean to uphold: rather, it is the ontological
merging of spirit and body which she affirms in her approach, and she does so
in the teeth of the preceding male editors.