Asst Prof. John Richard Tangney
HL202: Renaissance Literature
30 November 2010
Breaking free from the Paradox of Desire.
Sonnets in general deal with the theme of love, and with love unrequited there comes lust and desires. Shakespeare presents all these in myriad forms both lofty and low. Master of imitation, Shakespeare in my opinion surpasses his predecessor Petrarch in many ways, oftentimes breaking the tradition of the sonnet form and setting his own precedents. While the original Petrarchan sonnets celebrate and revere the objects of their adorations and desires, they are ultimately caught in the paradoxes of their passion, between pleasure and pain. Petrarchan sonnets are fixated on the state between wanting and not getting. Shakespeare however attempts to grapple with that sempiternal question of desire. I will be discussing his attempts at breaking out of that vicious cycle of jouissance as well as his search for solutions to that impasse.
To properly understand Shakespeare’s sonnets, we need to understand that his sonnets are a reaction against the Petrarchan tradition of sonnets. While Petrarchan sonneteers are singularly ensnared by the image of the “chaste and aloof blond beauty” and their “moods confined to what the Renaissance thought were those of the despairing Petrarchan lover”, Shakespearean sonnets are anything but (Greenblatt 1061). Shakespeare sees the paradox of the Petrarchan object of desire as a ‘freezing fire’ or a ‘pleasant pain’ and realizes that these sonneteers are unable to break free from this paradox of desire, thus are limited and confined by it.
Shakespeare defies the objectification and compartmentalization of the Petrarchan blazon, mocking the use of hyperbolic similes. Such conventions are shattered in “Sonnet 130” with “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun” (Shakespeare 1). The reification of the woman by the Petrarchan sonneteer, foisting impossible aesthetic qualities upon her physical form ironically emphasizes the impossibility of the Petrarchan lover obtaining her by distancing himself away from her. It appears as if the Petrarchan lover desires this state of impasse more than he desires the perfect lady herself, he desires her only because he knows he cannot obtain her, but without her existence there would be no desire in the first place. Thus with this anti-Petrarchan sonnet, Shakespeare manages to close the gap of this impasse first by de-objectifying the woman, simply by not describing her as a Petrarchan sonneteer would, “I grant I never saw a goddess go; My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground” (“Sonnet 130” 12). His realistic portrayal of a typical woman with her imperfections makes her more accessible than “any she belied with false compare” (Shakespeare “Sonnet 130” 14). Despite her mundane appearance, the poet thinks of his love for her “as rare” as the lofty proclamations of the Petrarchan lover (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 130” 13). Therefore, Shakespeare elevates himself above the Petrarchan lovers, as he is capable of loving an ordinary woman, not trapped by the paradox of adoring a woman that is out of his reach. Shakespeare has transcended the limits of love being defined solely by the despair of the Petrarchan lover, yet even as he escapes this paradox he meets with another.
In “Sonnet 129”, the poet recognizes the emptiness that desires carry with them, and falls into the paradox of grappling with the lust associated with sexual desire. In essence, desires once sated would leave a void, creating a vacuum for more desires; hence the concept of desire is innately paradoxical because it can never be really sated. Shakespeare describes the desire for lust as “past reason hunted” and lovers are often “mad in pursuit” of it (“Sonnet 129” 6, 9). Yet once that desire has been fulfilled, it is “enjoyed no sooner but despised straight”, condemned immediately as an “expense of spirit in a waste of shame” (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 129” 5, 1). Spirit here refers to semen being expended in a wasteful manner; the pun on spirit also refers to vitality, as semen is the seed of life in the womb. The pun on waste suggests that sex is not being used for its rightful purpose of procreation, that in this wasteful “expense of spirit”, the womb (waist) is also left barren (waste) (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 129” 1). Desire is like something once “in possession so… past reason hated”, Shakespeare thus points out that there is no purported love or sense of fulfilment at the end of the road of desire (“Sonnet 129” 9, 7). Therefore it is troubling to note that the Petrarchan sonnets often conflate desires with a physical object that the line is often blurred. Desire is not an object; it is a state of mind if left unchecked would consume the individual. Shakespeare asserts “all this the world well knows; yet none knows well / To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell”, clearly we are well aware of the innate paradox when consumed with lust but we indulge ourselves knowing the outcome (“Sonnet 129” 13-14). The poet’s impersonal tone never once states that the subject of the sonnet was himself, but the vehemence of the voice behind it suggests otherwise, the poet knowing full well the effects of lust surrenders to his own lustful desires and lashes out for the lack of his better judgment. His malicious tone, “perjured, murd’rous, bloody, full of blame, savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust” signifies a kind of hatred towards the woman that can inspire such lust and lack of control (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 129” 3-4). Such is the paradox of irresistible desire, once fulfilled it is quickly replaced with great disgust and hate.
Shakespeare recognizes that there is only shame at the end of the road for lust, that the desire aroused by a woman is superfluous and sexual. Desire exists at the very core of our being, “had, having, and in quest to have” and we constantly seek it out only to repeat a foul vicious cycle again (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 129” 10). According to Plato’s Symposium, human beings were originally thought to be whole androgynous hermaphrodites with no visible gender; Zeus later decided that they were too numerous and they were split into their constituent male and female parts. Male and female lovers are then thought seek out and constitute each other, that in their flawed physical union, they were at least whole in the flesh. However, therein lies the root of the problem; sexual union is limited to the realm of the flesh. Humans are then cursed to continually seek out their perfect partners, only to find that at something is inherently lacking in each other, in their failed union; it is like attempting to mend two broken pieces of glass, no matter how carefully mended, the cracks are still visible and the imperfections still exist. As Adam said to Eve in Milton’s Paradise Lost, “Part of my soul, I seek thee, and thee claim / My other half” (Milton, “Book IV”, 487-488). Such desire is inevitable but it is also vacuous at the same time, because one cannot wholly possess another person completely; even so it is only for a short moment during sexual intercourse. This form of desire will never be fully satisfied due to the limitations of sexual intercourse. An individual is still a half, despite two lovers becoming one together, once left alone however, an individual is divided again and the process of desire repeats itself.
Up till now, the discussion of desires in loves unrequited and in lusts wasted has been limited to a man’s desire for a woman. Shakespeare complicates this by introducing a love triangle of a beautiful young man and a married dark lady. Shakespeare places this young man on a pedestal of sonnet worship in the style of Petrarch. However, he consigns this dark lady to twenty-five sonnets that “dwell on her imperfections and falsehoods and the paradox that nevertheless she inspires physical desire” earlier discussed in “Sonnet 129” and “Sonnet 130” (Barber 660). Shakespeare clearly scoffs at his desires, yet unable to break free from them. In contrast to the sonnets addressed to the young man, “there is exultant contemplation of the beloved’s beauty and cherishing of his whole identity but nothing of specific bodily prurience” (Barber 660). Clearly, there is a difference in the kinds of love he lavishes on the two; to the young man the love expressed is more lofty and reverent; to the dark lady it is unabatedly physical and sexual.
In my opinion, this is Shakespeare’s attempt at breaking out of the paradoxical impasse of desire. In “Sonnet 138”, it is clear that his desire for the dark lady is purely sexual, so much so that her blatant lies do not bother him, “I do believe her, though I know she lies” (Shakespeare, 2). Her infidelity is not an issue; to him she is only a tool for which to reassure his insecurities despite “wherefore say not I that I am old” (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 138” 10). Therefore, in exchange for her sexual favours, he is assured of his sexual prowess. Yet even he knows that this must fade with the ravages of time, this dalliance with the dark lady is merely “simple truth suppress’d” (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 138” 8). The final couplet “Therefore I lie with her and she with me, and in our faults by lies we flatter’d be” signals his resignation to the temptations of desire for “love’s best habit is in seeming trust”; that pretence and embracing desire is much easier and less painful than confronting the shames of lust (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 138” 13-14, 11). Shakespeare succumbs to this impasse of sexual desires, imperfect, lacking and flawed as it is, he offers another source to supplant what is missing from this desire that sex alone cannot fulfill: the young man.
While the love he has for the dark lady is clearly eros or erotic love, the love he has for the young man is that of caritas or altruistic love. It is through the young man that the poet experiences “the sum of life’s powers and perfections”; Barber is suggesting that the young man satisfies the poet’s desire for a more intellectual and wholesome relationship than the dark lady’s purely sexual relationship (660). Barber states, “there was a cult of friendship in the Renaissance …[that] set ideal friendship between men above love for a woman” and that it was not uncommon for Elizabethans to use the term “‘lover’ between men without embarrassment” (660). This can be seen in “Sonnet 20”, when Shakespeare refers to the young man as “the master mistress of my passion” where ‘passion’ here refers to the strong feelings the young man enraptures him with, beyond that of mere sexual desires (2). The final line acknowledges that sexual relations between men “had no place in Elizabethan social life” hence Shakespeare defines their relationship as such: “Mine be thy love, and thy love’s use their [woman’s] treasure” (Barber 661, “Sonnet 20” 14). Shakespeare’s intention here is that he should enjoy the ‘passion’ of love of his young friend while they procure the treasures of female sexual favours to satisfy what is lacking in their friendship. Evidently this coincides with the mercantile treatment of the female body, the poet merely makes use of her to satisfy the needs of male sexuality. In retrospect, it is not too different with the laissez-faire attitude he has for the dark lady in “Sonnet 138”: “Simply I credit her false-speaking tongue” their sexual relationship with each other is thus based mutual benefit and exchange which stands in stark contrast to the caritas he freely gives: “Mine by thy love” for the young man (Shakespeare, 7, “Sonnet 20” 14).
Indeed, the love expressed for the young man is love expressed by “identification rather than sexual possession”, it is the kind of love that “galvanizes his whole consciousness”, a process of finding “himself renewed in his friend” (Barber 662). I think that his relationship with the young man is a form of rebirth if not redemption from the debilitating effects of his guilt-ridden and shameful sexual relationship with the dark lady. Even though he cannot have a fulfilling sexual relationship with his friend, nevertheless it provides a reprieve from the paradox of loving a woman. But this solution for the paradox of desire is ultimately transient however, for the young man and the dark lady are “like two spirits do suggest me still” (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 144” 2). In “Sonnet 144”, it becomes clear that the young man though a “better angel” is not able to completely replace the “worser spirit” of the dark lady; this is despite him favouring the companionship of his friend for fulfilling his intellectual and cerebral needs, it seems as if he still cannot do without the sexual fulfillment of the dark lady (Shakespeare, 3-4).
Hence the poet arrives at a dilemma again and this is given visual effect by, “To win me soon to hell, my female evil tempteth my better angel from my side” (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 144, 5-6). Shakespeare here presents us with the tug-of-war between the ‘female evil’ and the ‘better angel’ for his soul; not unlike the ‘Good Angel’ and ‘Evil Angel’ in Doctor Faustus, reminding us of the pyschomachia tradition where the young man can be construed as a personified Virtue and the dark lady, Vice. As much as the poet here tries to blame the dark lady for “Wooing his purity with her foul pride”, he does not actively seek the truth: “Yet this shall I ne’er know, but live in doubt / Till my bad angel fire my good one out” automatically assuming the worst outcome (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 144” 8, 13-14). Clearly, Virtue and Vice are two irreconcilable concepts, and Shakespeare’s delicate balancing act between the two up till “Sonnet 144” falls apart miserably. What is even more disturbing is that Shakespeare does not attempt to confirm his suspicions instead is willing to languish in his self-doubt. The final line suggests that he is convinced that the dark lady has tempted the young man away from his side, that Vice has won the day. But what he is also saying is that the young man is ultimately masculine, like the poet he has his sexual needs and will ultimately succumb to sexual desires. Albeit Shakespeare demonstrates that love between men is on a higher cerebral level than the purely sexual relationship between men and women; but humans are ultimately limited by their gender and it is their gender bound urges that compel them to fall into the paradox of desire once more. Therefore Shakespeare, despite his valiant attempts returns back to square one again.
It seems that the paradox of desire is a fate to be suffered by humanity, for desire is innate to our being for we are divided individuals all seeking to reconstitute ourselves in our imperfect ways. If this desire that we seek to satisfy by carnal and intellectual means fail, perhaps the only solution left is to satisfy that desire in God. In “Sonnet 53”, the poet directs a question to the divine “What is your substance, whereof are you made, / That millions of strange shadows on you tend?” (Shakespeare, 1-2). Shakespeare recognizes the flawed nature of our sexual union and he understands that God is able to tend to ‘millions of strange shadows’ and fulfill their desire for union at a much higher spiritual level that is not transitory and fleeting. Therefore, if that desire may not be fulfilled in another individual, it may be fulfilled in God through the Eucharist, where one would physically embody and take unto himself the body and blood of Christ in turn reconstituting our divided selves from and fulfilling our desire to be whole again with the body and blood of Christ. However, while this appears to be the solution to the paradox, it may not have been possible for Shakespeare lived during the time of the Reformation where his Catholic heritage had to be suppressed, neither was he overtly religious. Perhaps he did see it as a possibility, but living the Reformation where one could not profess his faith freely kept him from taking this option. Then perhaps Shakespeare’s intention was merely to seek more understanding in the cosmos and life in general with his sempiternal question of “What is your substance, whereof are you made” (Shakespeare, “Sonnet 53, 1).
Certainly Shakespeare has managed to escape from the Petrarchan despair of not being able to obtain the object of his desire. Yet he stumbles upon the bottomless pit of shame with his craven and paradoxical desire for the dark lady. And as much as he tries to supplement his sexual desires with his more intellectual desire with the young man, he realizes that he cannot have both and is caught once more by the unanswerable question posed by the Petrarchan sonneteers. Shakespeare himself did not proffer the solution to turn to God for the answer to the paradox of desires; nonetheless, as seen by the religious matter sprinkled sparingly throughout the sequence of sonnets, I think there was a desire however small to seek God as an outlet for life’s unanswerable questions be it regarding the paradoxes of our human desire, or not.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. “Sonnets.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2006. 1062-1076. Print.
Milton, John “Paradise Lost” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2006. 1908-1927. Print.
Greenblatt, Stephen, and Abrams M.H., eds. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2006. Print.
Shakespeare, William. “William Shakespeare Sonnet 53 What is your substance, whereof are you made” William Shakespeare The Complete Works. 16 November 2008. 25 November 2010.
Barber, C. L. “Shakespeare in His Sonnets” The Massachusetts Review 1.4 (1960): 648-672. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment