Harris 1 Dionte Harris ENGL301 Section 0201 Dr. Wyatt September 30, 2013 Heaven or Hell?

The Exploration of Lust and Desires in Shakespeares Sonnet 129 In Sonnet 129, Shakespeare reflectively defines lust as the expense of Spirit in a waste of shame, yet alludes that it is initially a bliss in proof a joy proposed, and ultimately; heaven, to present the contrasting shift in attitudes that occur throughout the conquest, the possession, and, eventually, the memory of our desired object. That something we once dreamed of, something that our flesh once carnally craved, can lead [us] tohell[to sit] in a waste of shame. In the opening phrase, the speaker immediately sets a morose tone, and by defining lust in action, or lust as it is in progress towards a goal, as the cost of Spirit, our soul and vital energy, in a waste of shame. Here waste carries a double meaning, on one end, it means a desert land, a vast empty space; however, on the other end, waste is the useless expenditure or consumption of our Spirit; therefore, lust causes us to expend our Spirit and places it in a vast desert of shame. Moreover, Lust till action, until it has completed its purpose, is further described as perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame, savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust (3,4). The speaker personifies lust, with a nine-item-long list of unattractive character traits, in order to effectively conceive the image of a dark stranger, a threat, someone that is not to be trust[ed]; conclusively, a danger to our well-being. And by doing so, he reasserts his morose and ill-temper towards lust. Moreover, in line three we see our first major discrepancy between editors. The modern version reads [lust is]murderous, bloody, full of blame while the Shakespearean

Harris 2 version reads [lust is] murdrous, blouddy full of blame (3). The use of the comma between bloody and full of blame in the modern edit separates them; thereby, making each an individual trait and almost undermining the strength of murderous, because as soon as we realize and process that lust is being paralleled with the most extreme, the action: murder, the speaker has already moved on to a less extreme, the consequence: bloody, and instantly moves on to the least extreme, the descriptor: full of blame. However, the Shakespearean version, without the comma seems to be more accurate with the read. By not adding a comma, blouddy full of blame collectively explains what was the result of the murder. This not only keeps the strength of lust being murderous, but also corroborates it; as a result, giving it time to grow and allowing it to fully expand into something bloody[and] full of blame (3). The speaker then informs us of how ephemeral the satisfaction of lust is. He says, [lust is] enjoyd no sooner but despised straight to signal that as quickly as it is experienced and enjoyed, that it is hated. The parallelism between enjoyed and despised also diminishes the weight of any positive that can come from lust for despised has a heavier, more weighted connotation attached to it than if the speaker would have used a seemingly equal word to the lighthearted enjoyed, such as dislike. He then says, past reason hunted; and, no sooner had, past reason hated to show that we initially have no viable reason to pursue after lust. The use of the word past, instead of an actual reason, alludes to the frivolousness, or non-existence, of the reason the chase after lust; moreover, when we have finished our acts of lust, we begin to hate, and regret, our lusted object. Next really begins to disclose the reason for his contempt towards lust: it is a trap, alluring and irresistible bait placed with only the purpose to make us mad. He declares, [lust is] a swallowd bait on the purpose laid to make the taker mad to substantiate this claim for just as

Harris 3 it is natural for a fish to grab on to the bait, it is natural for people to chase after lust. However, just as the fish when it realizes that it has fallen for a trap, we go mad: we get frustrated, we try to escape, to retrace our steps to avoid the trap, but in contrast to the fish we also go mad: frantic, distressed, and crazy living through the experience of lust. At the end of line eight, we encounter our second major discrepancy between the modern and Shakespearean versions of the sonnet: the modern version ends with a semicolon; whereas, the Shakespearean version concludes with a period. The modern edit reads [lust is] on purpose laid to make the taker mad; mad in pursuit, and in possession, in which the semicolon allows for the immediate explanation of how lust makes people mad; it does not allow, or give time for, a complete rest. We become mad, frenetic, in the pursuit, the possession of our lust. It answers a how rather than the Shakespearean edit which answers a because. The Shakespearean edit of line eight reads, [lust is] on purpose layd to make the taker mad. Made in pursuit and in possession, the period at the end of the line completely ends the sentence, the thought; therefore, making the next line related without being a direct modifier of the ending word mad. The allowance of a breath, a moment to reflect, makes the Shakespearean edit more appropriate version. Moreover, the first word of line nine in the Shakespearean version is made as opposed to another mad in the modern version. The effect of choosing made answers the because; thus, we are mad, frenetic, because of our incessant pursuit, and ephemeral possession of lust rather than being mad in our pursuit and possession of lust. And by answering the because instead of the how, the sonnet reads smoother; the speaker then utters had, having, and in quest to have, extreme; a bliss in poof, and proved, a very woe to infer that the chase, possession, and memory of lust are all extreme; however, lust is a diamond in our thoughts, perfect and indestructible, but when realized it is nothing more than

Harris 4 a burden, a temporal moment, that leads to permanent anguish. The speaker further concedes this statement by explaining lust as as [a] joy proposed before we actually encounter it; however, it quickly becomes a dream: a false sense of reality, a mere memory, while stile being a nightmare once the experience is behind us. We come across our final discrepancy between edits in the couplet. The modern version reads all this the world knows; yet none knows well to shun the heaven that leads men to this hell. The use of the semicolon adds a pause, suggesting that we are aware that chasing after lust will lead us to regret; moreover, the actual pause the semicolon brings alludes that we have the time to stop to assess our situation, our urge to follow lust. However, the speaker earlier argued that our pull towards lust was natural, and unplanned, rather than a conscious decision; therefore, we do not have the time to stop think, and plan our next move. This makes the Shakespearean edit favorable, because there is no semicolon between knows and yet in line thirteen; thereby, creating a sense of constant motion, fluidity, which shows that there is not time to stop when we are impacted by lustful thoughts and feelings. Therefore, we know what we are getting ourselves into, but we cannot stop to obstruct our instinctual feelings to make, not the wiser choice but simply, a choice; therefore, we [do not] know wellhow to shun the heaven, [lust], that leads men tohell.