Pretty and Ugly

Shakespeare’s Sonnet 130, “My mistress’ eyes are Nothing like the Sun”, meaning is enhanced by Catherine Tate’s classroom performance by mocking the traditional conventions of love in love poetry.

Throughout the sonnet, Shakespeare mainly relies on hyperbole and imagery to describe the love he has towards his mistress. Instead of comparing, the speaker contrasts her to nature. Traditionally, poets are likely to compare their lover to nature to complement their physical appearance and personality, however by the speaker doing the opposite, he’s stating he loves his mistress more than he loves his beloved, who possibly could be his wife. The overall situation is showing infidelity. How so? The biggest hint is this poem is about a mistress. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there are numerous definitions, but one in particular states that a mistress is, “A woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship.”  From what is observed through the sonnet is Shakespeare uses a lot of imagery to describe this mistress. He starts off with, “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun.” (Shakespeare, Line 1). Just by calling her “mistress” the readers can identify that this ‘love’ poem isn’t the traditional love poem. The speaker is talking about an extramarital relationship, which in some perspectives, is considered unfaithful and absurd. He continues by stating, “eyes are nothing like the sun.” (Line 1) The sun is bright. From stating her eyes are not the sun, the speaker is indicating her eyes are not bright or shiny. So, is he claiming her eyes are dull? Isn’t this the opposite of a compliment towards a woman? It’s not the only example of imagery he provides, he continues with “Coral is far more red than her lips red;” (Line 2). For some, red lips are an attractive and beautiful feature in women. From stating, “Coral is far red than her lips-” (Line 2). He’s basically claiming her red lips are not as attractive or as vibrant as coral.  This is where hyperbole appears. The speaker becomes exaggerated when describing his mistress’ physical attributes, to make the differences more apparent between the beauty of nature and hers. The imagery gives readers a possible visual on how his mistress looks which isn’t really pleasing. He mentions, “If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun.” (Line 3). The era and place this sonnet were written in should also be considered since it will provide a deeper understanding on how these physical details are being negative. In England, precisely around the 1600’s, the whiter a woman was and the redder her lips were the more beautiful they were considered. In this case, this poem, is describing the complete opposite, it is a woman with dull eyes, light red lips, tannish breasts, and unruly black hair. Does it stop there? No. The speaker trails off to the color of her cheeks next, stating, “I have seen roses demasked, red, and white, But no such roses see I in her cheeks.” (Shakespeare, Lines 5 and 6). A rose is the traditional symbol of love and beauty, to say that there are no such roses in her cheeks- Is he calling his mistress ugly?  Is he trying to humiliate her? Compliment her? Does he even love her? He even goes on to describing her breath, mentioning, “And in some perfumes is there more delight Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.” (Lines 7 and 8). He’s even saying her breath isn’t pleasant and stinks. There is exaggeration happening with these lines since he’s stating some perfumes are better to smell than her breath, but why is he saying this? The things he says are quite horrendous, however by stating such things, the speaker is giving his mistress her place. He’s seeing her as who she is and is not describing her with common nature comparisons love poems give when describing their lovers. That’s how Shakespeare mocks traditional love poems. Though it’s ugly, the speaker is demonstrating that his mistress’ beauty is one of a kind, and something that popular attributes that most love poems use cannot describe.

How is this whole meaning enhanced by Catherine Tate’s classroom performance though? When Catherine portrayed that insolent school girl, her attitude was very hideous from the start. Though Shakespeare was more physically descriptive, not too much on behavior they can still be connected in the aspect that both the sonnet and Catherine’s character showed a type of ugliness. She uses the poem as a way to threaten her teacher. She was very aggressive and quick when she recited it enforcing that point. Why though? Why did she use the poem? She transformed the poem’s meaning by literally breaking the beauty ideals in poetry. Even though Shakespeare’s sonnet was quite ugly with its various examples of vivid contrasting imagery, surely, he didn’t want his poem to be read in such a harsh and quick manner, so by Catherine reciting the poem in such a tone and pace, it makes the ugliness stand out more within Shakespeare’s sonnet, “My mistress’ eyes are Nothing like the Sun.”

-Claudia Dominguez

An Ordained Love

Within Hafez’s “Ode 44,” he utilizes an extended metaphor of wine and an allusion to Narcissus to describe the love between two people in order to describe a divine love and relationship for God. Hafez first uses both metaphor and allusion in the first stanza, writing “Narcissus-eyes all shining for the fray,” (Hafez li. 4). Narcissus, a mythological figure, infamous for being in love with his own image (and beauty), eventually is transformed into a flower before he perishes. The allusion lends itself into the greater metaphor of comparing the lovers to a relationship with God, as the speaker portrays their love as something that cannot be distracted from, much like God– in doing this, Hafez aims to display how much like the lovers, the relationship (between people) to Islam and God is unyielding and devout. However, the metaphor is somewhat ironic in the way that Islam preaches selfless love and unity with God, but the speaker aims to have some sort of selfish relation with God, where they only gaze upon God, but it is possible that Hafez uses the seeming selfishness as a vehicle to show devoutness rather than selfishness itself. Further, Hafez describes the wine that the woman pours for the speaker as “[o]f Heaven’s own vine” (Hafez li. 14); the wine and grapes are used to express a love and passion for God, showing the innate divinity of the love they carry together. Ironically, the speaker gives into his lust for the wine, or rather he gives his body and soul over to God– he contrasts this with temptation in the lines after, to symbolize how the love that the speaker and woman emanate is holy, and quite frankly, the opposite of a sinful relationship. The metaphor serves as a conduit to truly show how devout and passionate love for Islam truly is; even in a metaphor containing seemingly sins, the contents allow a translation of a relationship to God as one that is undying and devout (seen through Narcissus) and also the only thing that may tempt a person (seen through wine).

The love emulated in Hafez’s “Ode 44” does showcase an acceptance of Islamic spirituality, as the way it is portrayed through metaphor shows how divine and pure the love is, and in extension, how beautiful and devout love with Islam and God is. The poem’s extended metaphor of wine displays how God is the only thing that tempts man, as Hafez uses wine from a woman to describe the tenor of a relationship with God, showing how nothing else may tempt man, for their relationship with God is undying and devout. Further, the allusion and metaphor through Narcissus also further explains an acceptance of Islamic spirituality, as even though it may be seen as a narcissistic, selfish love, the divine love itself is that of a devout nature, as once again, nothing may tempt the man from looking elsewhere– only God may provide him with solace. With these details in mind, it can be safely concluded that Hafez’s “Ode 44” does showcase acceptance of Islamic spirituality, as the extended metaphors and allusion in the ode describe a devotion and love for God that can only be described as divine.

Isaak Puth