Love Between True Minds

                                                                   by

                                  Leslie Sainthill

Today the term Renaissance usually generates thoughts of great sculptors and painters like Michelangelo and DaVinci, but there were many great philosophers, scientists, and writers involved in the wonderful rebirth of ideas. The Renaissance was an exhilarating time of change in politics, culture, and the social structure of Europe, for the religious authority of the dominant Catholic Church was questioned. As a result, individual spirituality and ideas were given more significance. More importantly, artists began producing fresh, imaginative ideas of truth, morality, and beauty instead of following the traditional ideas and knowledge that had been instilled by the Church (Napierkowski 292). William Shakespeare is one of the great artists of the Renaissance. He may not have painted canvases with oils like DaVinci, but his words paint the page with beautiful, tragic poetry evident in all his writing, no matter what genre. Though best known for his dramas, Shakespeare’s name is so synonymous with poetry that the English sonnet is often referred to as the Shakespearean sonnet despite the fact that the form was first adapted by the English poet Surrey (Arp 966) from the Italian poet Petrarch (Napierkowski 291). Shakespeare’s sonnets were published in 1609 in the collection titled Sonnets (Livingston 3587). The simple title does not do justice to the beautiful, complex works within the sonnet cycle. The 154 sonnets are skillfully woven with figurative language that enriches the reader’s experience and says most eloquently in a few words what could take paragraphs in modern speech. “Let me not to the marriage of true minds,” otherwise known as “Sonnet 116,” is one of the most popular sonnets of Shakespeare (Livingston 3588). “Sonnet 116” addresses the subject of love, which is a common theme in sonnets. Shakespeare uses paradox, metaphors, and personification in “Sonnet 116” to convey to the reader that true love is not fickle and will not wane or perish in the face of temptation, but endure eternally.

The first prime example of Shakespeare’s masterful use of figurative language appears in the first quatrain, in which the speaker of “Sonnet 116” is explaining what love is not. The speaker says, “[. . .] / Love is not love / Which alters when it alteration finds / Or bends with the remover to remove” (Shakespeare 2-4). For a reader not familiar with the use of paradox, line two may seem nonsensical, but making the contradictory statement adds more depth to the line. Upon closer observation, one can discern that two types of love are being addressed. One kind of love being referred to is a passionate, temporary love that people tend to fall into and out of quickly. The other type of love is the infinite, unconditional, and soul-binding love that most humans crave. It is the latter type of love that is being discussed throughout the poem. Marie Rose Napierkowski points out that the two forms of love may be differentiated by Shakespeare’s capitalization of the “l” when speaking of the unconditional love. She can only speculate about the importance of the capitalization of the word love, but she is confident in her assertion that two types of love are being contrasted in the first quatrain (Napierkowski 289). In lines 3 and 4, it appears that the love Shakespeare is advocating does not weaken when someone tries to destroy it. Even deception and unrequited feelings cannot impede true love (Livingston 3587). The assertion that a love will continue even when it is unrequited is a testament to the strength of the emotion. The most fundamental difference between the two types of love being compared in the sonnet is that true love does not falter when obstacles like change or temptation present themselves; whereas a false love buckles under the strain of such obstacles. The words of lines 2-4 and the conviction behind them set the tone for this sonnet that defines love as a strong and true emotion that will persevere over any obstacles, whether they are change, temptation, or time.

Further communicating the theme of the strength of true love is the use of metaphor in the second quatrain. Napierkowski agrees that the second part of the sonnet, in contrast to the first, seems to be explaining what love is instead of what love is not (Napierkowski 289). The speaker proclaims, “O no! It [love] is an ever-fixed mark/ [. . .] / It is the star to every wandering bark” (Shakespeare 5, 7). Through these lines, love is said to be a constant point that can always be located, much like the North Star. This metaphor is significant because the stars and their constellations were important navigational tools for ships even with the invention of the compass. The constant mark mentioned in line 5 could also be referring to a landmark like a lighthouse (Napierkowski 289) which is another essential navigational tool for sea travelers. The metaphor is successful in creating the image of a person in love as a wandering vessel, who by finding his or her star, or rather true love, finds direction and meaning. Napierkowski agrees that the nautical metaphor does give the impression that love establishes direction for an adrift or searching individual (289). The nautical metaphor is reinforced in the third quatrain with the use of the word compass, for compasses guide ships (Napierkowski 290). Furthermore, because the North Star is a never-changing presence, the use of the metaphor comparing love to the star perpetuates the theme of a love that does not disappear or fade, no matter how rough life’s waters may become.

“Sonnet 116” also illustrates the effect time has on a relationship. In many relationships, time seems to be the sharp rock that capsizes many vessels. Through the use of personification, “Sonnet 116” argues that a true love cannot be tarnished by time. The speaker demonstrates the timelessness of love in the third quatrain: “Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks / Within 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” (Shakespeare 9-12). Love is being personified by the use of the word fool in line 9. Because deception is an artifice used by humans to trick their counterparts, the speaker is giving a human attribute to love by stating that love cannot be foolish. Time, on the other hand, is being personified more overtly as a solemn figure with a sickle, perhaps alluding to the common personification of death, who with his passage takes the beauty of youth but not the underlying emotion of true minds. Napierkowski describes Shakespeare’s personification of time as a “scythe-wielding Father Time” (289-90). She does not specifically connect the figure to the Grim Reaper, but her description generates his image. Livingston, however, does make a direct comparison between the personification of time and the Grim Reaper (3587). Both Napierkowski and Livingston would concur that though Death is acknowledged in the sonnet, he is no barrier for the pure emotion of a faithful, soul-binding love. Livingston agrees that “Not even death can part true lovers; their union endures forever. Because love has the capacity to raise human action to this exalted state, it alone enables humans to transcend temporal limitations. Humankind becomes godlike through love” (3587). The idea that mortal humans could cheat death by connecting on a spiritual and mental level is truly magnificent.

Shakespeare supports his interpretation, in the ending couplet, by saying that if proven wrong in his definition of love, “[he has] never writ, nor no man ever loved” (Shakespeare 14). Napierkowski contends: “The poet is so certain that love prevails over time that he rests his career and the entire history of love on his proclamation, [. . .] proving nothing but the intensity of his own desire for it to be so (Napierkowski 290). One must also point out that the statement could also stem from an experience the poet has had. Nevertheless, the masterful works Shakespeare has bestowed upon centuries of readers prove his reputation as a writer is not in jeopardy, nor is the credibility given to his insight on true love. His 154 sonnets, thirty-eight plays, and two epic narrative poems are among the most written about works in Western civilization (Pressley 1). As remarkable is the fact that the author himself is also one of the most written about authors, though only a few legal documents exist to give biographers insight into his life. Even today, four-centuries later, Shakespeare is influencing readers. His works have been printed in more than one hundred languages, and nine major motion pictures were derived from Shakespeare’s plays in the ten years between 1989 and 1999 alone (Kastan 477). The continued popularity of the plots and characters developed by the Bard proves that they still capture the imagination and hearts of audiences (Kastan 477). It is hard to discredit the opinion of such a literary genius, so the couplet and the sonnet as a whole are ultimately successful.

“Sonnet 116” seems to define an almost fairy tale idealization of love, but the references to the conquering of temptation, change, and fading physical beauty make the definition seem richer and more attainable. Love is portrayed as a beautiful emotion between two people, but one is given the clear impression that love is not easy and requires work. The phrase “marriage of true minds” in the first line maintains that love is more than just a union of bodies and family; it is a joining of minds. Livingston elaborates by saying: “This kind of love is as far removed from the level of mere sensation as any human activity could be. Like all ideal forms, it operates on the level of abstract intellect or of soul. [. . .]. It is a love that fuses spirits intuitively related to each other” (Livingston 3589). The love defined in “Sonnet 116” is the timeless emotion that makes humans endure the mist of pain, which accompanies the false love, in hopes that the mist will part, and the North Star will peek through and guide them to their rightful destination of fulfilled dreams and love. Shakespeare uses figurative language such as paradox, metaphors, and personification in “Sonnet 116” to communicate to the reader that true love is not fickle and will not wane or perish in the face of temptation, but endure eternally.


                                                                             Works Cited

Arp, Thomas R., and Greg Johnson. “Pattern.” Perrine’s Literature: Structure, Sound, and Sense. 8th ed. Eds.
          Thomas R. Arp and George Johnson. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 2002. 996.

Kastan, David Scott. “William Shakespeare.” World Poets. Ed. Ron Padgett. New York: Charles Scribner’s
          Sons, 2000. 477-83.

Livingston, James. “Sonnet 116.” Masterplots II: Poetry Series. 7th ed. Eds. Philip K. Jason, et al. Pasadena:
          Salem P, 2002. 3587-89.

Napierkowski, Marie Rose and Mary Ruby, eds. “Sonnet 116.” Poetry for Students: Presenting
         Analysis, Context, and Criticism on Commonly Studied Poetry. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 1998. 289-300.

Pressley, J.M. “Shakespeare’s Works.” Shakespeare Resource Center. 1997. 20 April 2003.
          <http://www.bardweb.net/plays.html>.

Shakespeare, William. “Let me not to the marriage of true minds.” Perrine’s Literature:
          Structure, Sound, and Sense. 8th ed. Eds. Thomas R. Arp and Greg Johnson. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 
          2002. 1092.

"Love Between Two Minds" was written for Dr. Barbara Murry’s ENGL 1102 class during spring 2003 semester by Leslie Sainthill, then a sophomore majoring in Secondary Education.