|Let me not to the marriage of true minds||In the marriage of true minds,|
|Admit impediments. Love is not love,||there are no obstacles. Love is not love|
|Which alters when it alteration finds,||even when one changes|
|Or bends with the remover to remove.||or is absent.|
|O no, it is an ever fixed mark,||No, it is a fixed point,|
|That looks on tempests and is never shaken.||and impervious to storms.|
|It is the star to every wandering bark,||It is the Pole Star to every ship,|
|Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.||whose worth is unknown, but its degree (location) is known.|
|Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks||Love is not Time’s fool, even if beauty|
|Within his bending sickle’s compass come.||is cut down by the ravages of Time.|
|Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks||Love does not change with the swiftness of Time,|
|But bears it out even to the edge of doom.||but Love lasts till Judgment Day.|
|If this be error and upon me proved,||If I am proven wrong in this,|
|I never writ, nor no man ever loved||I never wrote and no man ever loved.|
- Skip to navigation
- Skip to main content
- Skip to primary sidebar
- Skip to secondary sidebar
- Skip to footer
A Library of Literary Interestingness
A Short Analysis of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116: ‘Let me not to the marriage of true minds’
Posted by interestingliterature
A commentary on Shakespeare’s 116th sonnet
A real wedding favourite, this: Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116. ‘Let me not to the marriage of true minds’ is a popular poem to be recited at wedding readings , and yet, as many commentators have pointed out, there is something odd about a heterosexual couple celebrating their marriage (of bodies as well as minds) by reading aloud this paean to gay love, celebrating a marriage of minds but not bodies (no gay marriage in Shakespeare’s time). This makes the poem, along with Robert Frost’s often-misunderstood ‘The Road Not Taken’ , a candidate for the most-misinterpreted poem in English. So let’s take a closer look at this poem by way of summary and analysis. First, though, a reminder of Sonnet 116.
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
As ever, we’ll begin by paraphrasing the content of Sonnet 116, so as to provide a summary of the poem’s meaning. ‘May I never acknowledge any barriers to the notion of two people, who are made for each other, being joined together. What people call “love” is not really love if it alters when it finds the other person changed, or gives in when someone seeks to remove that love. Oh no, love is an eternal mark, like a beacon or lighthouse out at sea, that survives stormy spells and remains steady and strong; love is the star guiding every boat out at sea, because it is like the stars whose position we have measured, but which remain something of a mystery to us. Love does not serve Time the way a Fool serves the King, although Time’s scythe mows down every man in the end. Love doesn’t alter in the course of Time’s brief hours and weeks (time is, after all, fleeting), but remains faithful even until Doomsday, or the end of the world. If what I’ve claimed here about love is proved to be incorrect, I never wrote anything, nor did any man truly love anything.’
As we remarked above, Sonnet 116 is often analysed as a poem about a ‘marriage of minds’ between any two people – but the specific context of the poem (in a sequence of Sonnets addressed to, or about, a young man: the first 126 poems in Shakespeare’s Sonnets focus on the Fair Youth) gives such an interpretation a twist: it is marriage of minds, a Platonic love, which can never be recognised in the way that heterosexual love can be recognised through the solemn and binding covenant of marriage. Shakespeare brings this home in the first line-and-a-half of Sonnet 116 by using the word ‘marriage’ but also the word ‘impediments’, conjuring up the part of the Christian wedding ceremony when the priest asks if anyone knows of any impediments why the bride and groom might not be joined in holy matrimony. ‘Impediments’, then, is a loaded word here, and dripping with wry irony: there are impediments that would prevent Shakespeare from marrying the Fair Youth (assuming Anne Hathaway was out of the picture), because same-sex marriage is not an option in Shakespeare’s England.
And this emphasis on gay love (we can’t really say ‘homosexuality didn’t exist in Shakespeare’s day’: okay, people didn’t define themselves by their sexuality in the same way, perhaps, but as the Sonnets show, homosexuality was clearly more than the act of sex) is neatly captured in the ambiguity of that last line, which has been criticised by some commentators for being too glib (after all, even if Shakespeare’s theory of love was proved wrong, it wouldn’t technically mean he’d never written anything). But what such analysis tends to overlook is that we can interpret that last line in two very different ways: its meaning is either ‘I never wrote, and no man ever truly loved anyone’ or ‘I never wrote, nor did I love any man’.
We’ve remarked before on the way ‘love’ would have been pronounced in Shakespeare’s time , so that concluding couplet doesn’t end on an eye-rhyme but a full rhyme – or at least it probably would have been a perfect rhyme when Shakespeare wrote this sonnet. Sonnet 116 ends as conclusively as the other sonnets – it’s we who have misinterpreted it.
If you found this analysis of Sonnet 116 useful, you can discover more about the Sonnets here .
- Share on Tumblr
A blog dedicated to rooting out the interesting stuff about classic books and authors.
View all posts by interestingliterature »
Posted on December 4, 2017, in Literature and tagged Analysis , English Literature , Let Me Not To The Marriage Of True Minds , Poetry , Shakespeare’s Sonnets , Sonnet 116 , Summary , William Shakespeare . Bookmark the permalink . 2 Comments .
December 5, 2017 at 8:05 pm
I think, this text gives no evidence that Shakespeare is speaking of gay love. “Marriage of true minds” is just a poetic expression for love between man and woman in Shakespeare time.
Pingback: A Short Analysis of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116: ‘Let me not to the marriage of true minds’ #literature | Phil Slatterys Blog
Top Posts & Pages
Search This Site
- The word ‘syphilis’ is derived from the name of an afflicted character in a 1530 poem by Italian physician Girolamo Fracastoro. 2 hours ago
- A kitten is so flexible that she is almost double; the hind parts are equivalent to another kitten with which the f… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 hours ago
Like Us On Facebook
Like Us On Facebook
- Interesting Literature is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by linking to Amazon.co.uk.
Blog at WordPress.com.