In Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 116” the speaker gives the reader a set of guidelines on what love is and what love is not. Quatrain 1 and 3 focuses on what love is not, except for the last line of quatrain 3 which tells us what love is. In quatrain 1, the speaker uses wordplay and an enjambment to explain that real love does not change under any circumstance. In quatrain 3 the speaker explains what love is not through the personification of time. Love is not at the mercy of time, it is not “Time’s fool” (9). It is fitting that the speaker gives us the message of the sonnet in quatrain 2, it is as if the poem is a sandwich in that the “meat” of the poem is in the middle. The speaker gives the theme of the poem by giving the metaphor that love is the
…show more content…
After this initial thought, the speaker then talks about what love is not. The speaker does this through the use of wordplay. In line 2 the speaker pairs “love” and “not love” (2) together. In line 3 we see the pairing of “alters” and “alteration” (3). Also in line 4 with “remover” and “remove” (4). The wordplay lies in the play of what at first seems to be opposites. For example, love that alters or removes when it finds alteration or removal means that the love is not true love. So this is saying a partner that “alters” (3) when the person is sick or encounters any “alteration” (3) then it is not true love. Also if the partner stops loving if the other partner tries to “remove” (4) the relationship then it is not true love. If the love does not meet both of these criteria, then it is not true …show more content…
The speaker begins this personification of time to tell us love is not the plaything of time and that love is not changed by this person “time”; love is not “Time’s fool” (9). Even when the lover turns old and grey; love still is not altered by time’s “brief hours and weeks” (11). Yet good looks do not last forever they are within time’s “bending sickle’s” (10). The “sickle” is a synecdoche used to describe the grim reaper; which is a metaphor for death. Time and death are combined in this line, to tell us that time has the sickle and good looks are within it so they will die one day, but love will never die, but good looks will die. To sum up the first and third quatrains the speaker establishes what love is not; the second quatrain establishes what love
After this initial thought, the speaker then talks about what love is not. The speaker does this through the use of wordplay. In line 2 the speaker pairs “love” and “not love” (2) together. In line 3 we see the pairing of “alters” and “alteration” (3). Also in line 4 with “remover” and “remove” (4). The wordplay lies in the play of what at first seems to be opposites. For example, love that alters or removes when it finds alteration or removal means that the love is not true love. So this is saying a partner that “alters” (3) when the person is sick or encounters any “alteration” (3) then it is not true love. Also if the partner stops loving if the other partner tries to “remove” (4) the relationship then it is not true love. If the love does not meet both of these criteria, then it is not true …show more content…
The speaker begins this personification of time to tell us love is not the plaything of time and that love is not changed by this person “time”; love is not “Time’s fool” (9). Even when the lover turns old and grey; love still is not altered by time’s “brief hours and weeks” (11). Yet good looks do not last forever they are within time’s “bending sickle’s” (10). The “sickle” is a synecdoche used to describe the grim reaper; which is a metaphor for death. Time and death are combined in this line, to tell us that time has the sickle and good looks are within it so they will die one day, but love will never die, but good looks will die. To sum up the first and third quatrains the speaker establishes what love is not; the second quatrain establishes what love