The Sonnets are, like many of the plays, something of a Rorschach test for the reader.
Is it too tempting to read a narrative progression in the sonnets, to read them as a sequence with identifiable dramatis personae, referring to some long-ago soap opera of same sex desire, love, heterosexual love and lust, betrayal, loss, reconciliation, and so on? Are the diads, triplets and other "sequences" (e.g. 60-63, 113-116) real or just artifacts of our need to create compelling stories that explain what is apparently before us? We have no independent authorial evidence for the sequencing, only the 17th century Quarto, and some possible internal evidence (linguistic and stylistic cues). Do we see the Shakespeare we want to find?
On the other hand, I have no particular personal investment in a same-sex love, recusant Catholic Shakespeare, other than this is a different (and therefore more compelling) version of the Bard I was taught to believe in (and this is not an accidental choice of words) when I was in school.
Are these poems about love? If so, they offer a picture of love that may be more realistic than thy movies or later literatures seem to be offering: dark, obsessional, jealous, self-torturing, by turns self-aggrandizing and self-annihilating; conrolled by the ego and the perjured (but answerable and guilty) "I".
And when it comes to the ego, and strategies of self-revelation and secrecy, there is no more apposite play than Julius Caesar. This play asks us to meditate on, among many other things, the nature of subjectivity - how do we know what we think and who we are? Does Brutus know his own thoughts before Cassius tells him "Let me be your glass [i.e. mirror]" As Wilson demonstrates in Secret Shakespeare - the playwright was masterful in concealing his own thoughts and beliefs. For such a public person who left so many plays and poems, we cannot finally nail him down on his own views on religion, politics, marriage - all the evidence that remains are a will, some real estate transactions, and the plays and poems. It is as though Brutus is some exemplar of what we can expect if we do turn our own private beliefs into public action: danger at best, and death and defeat at worst. As Wilson notes, Shakespeare lived in anxious times where it could be dangerous to profess one's religious belief (other than the state sanctioned church), or one's political views (other than blind allegiance to the monarch); an age of paranoia and where agents of the state were thought to be everywhere at once, and where secret networks of dissidents practiced the old religion in fear and distrust. This image of Elizabeth I, known as the Rainbow Portait is one the frontispeiece of Shakespeare's Perjured Eye. It shows the queen holding a rainbow and the Latin motto reads "Non sine sole iris" (No rainbow without the sun). But look at her gown adorned with eyes, ears and mouths. What message is being sent here - surveillance? The all-controlling, all-seeing monarch? No wonder Shakespeare wanted to keep his own thoughts and beliefs secret.
Recent Comments