A Tale of Two Shakespeares: Sonnet 130 as Satire

Shakespeare was a man of many faces; as he evolved as a writer, so too did his plays and sonnets. One clear example of this shift is how Sonnet 130 serves as a response to earlier poems like Sonnet 18. The first aspect of this response is that Sonnet 130 mimics the style of Sonnet 18 as a way to satirize it. Three clear examples of this mimicry is how both poems follow the traditional English sonnet rhyme scheme (a-b-a-b-c-d-c-d-e-f-e-f-g-g); both poems are directed towards a person, who is contrasted with nature; and both make use of two turns to illustrate their argument. Beyond these similarities, however, we see two poems that could not be more different, with Sonnet 18 seemingly celebrating its subject and Sonnet 130 seemingly mocking its subject. However, the mocking of the subject is ironic in effect, as what Sonnet 130 really represents is the mocking of former love poets and poems. While Sonnet 18 represents the Shakespeare hewing to convention, seemingly paying tribute to some beautiful subject, Sonnet 130 shows Shakespeare’s satirical and ironic reaction to this kind of poetry and thus represents a critical rejection of his former work.

In the openings of Sonnet 18 and Sonnet 130, the differences are clearly illustrates. In the earlier work the poet proclaims, “Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? / Thou art more lovely and more temperate” (1-2). Here we have a celebration of the subject as a kind of ethereal beauty, something unmatched by nature. The use of an opening question, in turn, gives the poem an exaggerated feel, in which the poet’s speech superfluously states a simple thing. The opening to Sonnet 130 bears some similarities to Sonnet 18, since both are written in iambic pentameter, and both use similar metaphorical devices – Sonnet 18 compares its subject to summer, while Sonnet 130 compares its subject to the sun. Yet, despite these similarities, the opening to Sonnet 130 functions as a rejection of Sonnet 18 in both form and content. Whereas Sonnet 18 begins with a superfluous question, Sonnet 130 makes two direct statements when the poet writes: “My mistress' eyes are nothing like sun / coral is far more red than her lips red” (1-2). A clear difference in content is seen here: whereas “Sonnet 18” raises the subject above nature, Sonnet 130 illustrates how the subject falls below nature. While at first glance, it might seem like Sonnet 130 is insulting its subject, it is actually making use of irony to criticize poetic conventions. So instead we have a straightforward message: no one has eyes that are like the Sun, no one has lips that are as red as coral.

After the first two lines of each poem, there is a further divergence in the two poems. Sonnet 18 spends the next four lines focusing on the shortcoming of summer. The poet notes that summer is often cut too short, and the sun often burns too bright. This leads the poet into philosophical musing: “And every fair from fair sometimes declines, / By chance or nature’s changing course untrimmed” (7-8). The poet expresses an entropic view of nature, where everything must wither away with time. The most interesting thing to note in these six solid lines is that the poet, who presents himself as being infatuated and in love with the subject, has completely forgotten the subject’s existence. This act of forgetfulness reinforces the superficial and superfluous quality of Sonnet 18.

While Sonnet 18 might lose sight of its subject, Sonnet 130 never does. Instead, the next six lines continue in the same derogatory vein, seemingly criticizing his mistress' looks by finding them inadequate when compared to nature’s beauty. This is illustrated in the third line, when the poet denigrates the subjects breasts as not being of white like perfection. : “If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun” (3). This is shown again in lines five and six, when the poet first talks about the beauty of roses, only to find that his subject's cheeks lack their colorful variety. As with the opening two lines, lines three through eight create absurd comparisons that help the poem function as a criticism of the flowery comparisons of poems like Sonnet 18. We also see that while a poem like Sonnet 18 shifts away from its subject, Sonnet 130 never does. This helps serve the argument that Sonnet 18 is hollow in quality, in that it focuses on the egotistic poet rather than the supposedly beloved subject.

The turn in line nine of both Sonnet 130 and Sonnet 18 further illustrates that the poems, while similar in style, diverge drastically in content. In Sonnet 18, this turn consists of the poet remembering his subject and noting that while everything withers away, she/he shall not, as noted when he proclaims: “But thy eternal summer shall not fade” (9). Here the poet is returning to the opening lines, which places the subject above nature. The first turn in Sonnet 130 is a bit more modest, but it is there at line nine as well. Whereas up to this point, Sonnet 130 has merely has offered up absurd criticisms of the subject, line nine illustrates that the poet actually feels affection towards the subject: “I love to hear her speak” (9). This turn helps signal that Sonnet 130 is not really about the subject’s failings, that these criticisms are not what they first appear to be.

Shakespeare reinforces the contrasting directions of each poem in the subsequent two lines. In Sonnet 18, this perceived direction consists of a final refrain about how the entropic nature of the universe shall not touch the subject: “Nor shall death brag thou wand’rest in his shade, / When in eternal lines to Time thou grow’st” (10-11). In Sonnet 130, however, we also see fondness but one grounded in reality: “my mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground” (11). Here, again, the poet is suggesting that conventional poetry is empty.

The secondary and final turn of each poem represents their final arguments, which illustrate Sonnet 130’s opposition to Sonnet 18. In Sonnet 18, the final argument consists of the poet revealing that the poem is not really about the subject at all, but himself. The reason the subject shall be immortal is not the result of his/her own beauty or greatness, but the result of the poet’s own literary prowess. She shall be immortal, because he will make her so: “So long lives this, and gives life to thee” (14). The subject, in other words, is nothing but an empty vessel and the thesis of the poem can be observed: Hail to the poet, he is like a god, giving life to nothing. Sonnet 130 final argument refutes this poetic narcissism, arguing that former poets have insulted their subjects when they have “belied” them “with false compare” (14). In other words, the thesis of Sonnet 130 is that former poets have been so obsessed with their own poetic inventions, that they have diminished their subjects with absurd comparisons.

In conclusion, Sonnet 18 and Sonnet 130, help establish that similarity in form doesn’t always reflect similarity in theme. In considering this idea, the reader can notice that the rhyme scheme of both maintains the common format of the English sonnet: a-b-a-b, c-d-c-d, e-f-e-f, g-g; they both follow iambic pentameter; they both hold similar metaphorical devices when they compare their subject to nature; and they both subvert the standard English sonnet by having an additional slight turn in line nine. These similarities, however, merely exist to emphasize the satirical thrust of Sonnet 130. While Sonnet 18 represents the conventional narcissistic love poem of its day, Sonnet 130 represents a critique of this with the poet mimicking the style of an earlier poet as a way to mock and lambast it for its dishonest qualities. Both poets just happen to be William Shakespeare, illustrating that even he was not safe from his own pen.