Sonnet 20 Essay

Sidney’s Virtues, Shakespeare’s Passion Throughout time, literature has tested a variety of roles within society. Much of early English literature was of a highly religious nature, and often used to teach lessons of morality and virtue, chivalric romance, and epic historical sagas. The purpose and role of poetry and other originative writing has been the topic of much controversy since its very beginning. As we have bared witness to in this class, poetry comes in many different forms, and with many different purposes. In defense of its value and worth Sir Phillip Sydney wrote his unequalled essay “In Defense of Poesy” in attempt to end the debate over the moralistic and virtuous ends of poetry. Sydney explains that poetry is an “art of imitation” and serves as a vehicle for knowledge and beauty with ends “to teach and delight” (1051). Sidney’s words may have defended mainstream renaissance poetry and limited other accessible works, but are we to assume Sidney would endorse all unknown and future works by the same merit? Discrepancy in some of those highly generalized claims, as well as deep rooted conflict might be found when examined alongside Shakespeare’s Sonnet #20. Sidney’s general claims may have proven accurate, or at least left little room for dispute in many cases, however in others we may not find so much truth. One should never doubt that occasionally the mold will break, leaving a work falling questionably close to the disputable boundaries of his assertions. Leave it to William Shakespeare to do the honors. His series of sonnets speculated to have been published without his permission reveals a different side of Sydney’s beloved poesy that I argue may have left even Sydney a bit tongue-tied. Although social relationships between renaissance men were much more affectionate in nature than is deemed socially appropriate for heterosexual men in today’s society, many scholars, writers, philosophers, and the like, believe this particular sonnet is indicative of Shakespeare’s homosexuality, which when laced with the ever-present ribbons of religion could be a recipe for disaster where virtuous and moralistic behavior is concerned. The sonnet begins by addressing the beauty of a young male’s face. Even at first glance his descriptions seem somewhat transcendent, or at least equaled to that of a beautiful woman. Shakespeare blatantly expresses his passion for this person, refraining from crudeness in the first few lines as he notes various characteristics and qualities that augment his affections. As the poem progresses, Shakespeare becomes more forward with his tone as his frustration seems to grow. The next lines, “Till nature as she wrong thee fell-a-doting, and by addition of thee defeated” (Shakespeare 1173) appear to blame nature for the seemingly purposeful wrongdoing of adding one part more than a woman, as if it were a personal charge on him. He continues on to say that as a result of that single addition, albeit much to his dolor, they are useless as physical lovers. Resolve is found when the pining author professes unyielding love and ownership of his mate’s soul, despite the fact that they will never know the physical love of one another. Shakespeare’s woes are apparent as he has made no attempt to conceal his feelings about the young man he immortalized in his artistry. The question rests heavily on how a sonnet of this nature, …show more content…
By viewing the work as a private encounter, as scholars believe was the original intent, it takes on a new form. A memento of sorts from lover to lover, and friend to friend. I do believe in this respect, not only virtue, but also secular components take on a new hue. Private words aren’t sinful, but in fact they embody a beautiful work of art, exactly the way Sidney says it should be. The poem teaches of unrequited love, beauty in unsuspecting places, and impossible self-restraint in the face of desire. Sitting idly watching your love be loved by another is a better test of virtue than any mortal thoughts of debauchery could impugn. Unclear if the difference is the intent of the writer, or the mindfulness of the reader, the polarizing qualities within each single line builds an increasingly intricate web, of which it is the job of the reader to untangle. What is sin to one is virtue to another, and sometimes they are one in the