I like Shakespeare because he presents multiple simultaneous, complex and rich meanings. His not-pin-down-able-ness is part of his draw, at least for me.
This is one of the sonnets that makes no attempt to convey any emotion or feeling; while it purports to be an expression of love, it is instead, of course, a kind of intellectual puzzle. It is in the nature of some of the banter between lovers in his plays, usually the female trying to outwit the male with challenging (but in their content, unimportant) questions, and the male demonstrating that he is witty enough to contrive answers. The assumption is that if he cannot come up with an ostensibly-logical response to a question such as, "Only yesterday you said you could not love me dearer, and yet today you say you love me more than ever - were you lying yesterday?" then he is unworthy of her love.
@@maryammarmar8276 Yeah, it's difficult. His original statement had been, in effect, that he loved her so much, it would be impossible to love her more. But, now he has claimed to love her even more (now) than he did then - so he has to defend that contradiction. In ll. 5-9, his defence is that the 'accidents' of time frequently alter "vows", "the decrees of kings", "sacred beauty", and "sharp'st intents" - a bit of a weak argument, but he's just getting started. In ll. 9-12, he's making a kind of plea for understanding: since I had no idea what the future could bring, and feeling I could only be certain of the present moment, was it not reasonable of me to regard the present moment as the be-all and end-all? Then, the concluding couplet, which, if I understand it correctly, provides, finally, a logical explanation: you might say that, for example, a three-month-old infant is as fully-grown as a three-month-old can possibly be - but you still expect them to keep growing; similarly, a three-month-old love might be as fully-grown as it could possibly be, but, like the infant, it will keep growing. Hope that makes some sense ... !
@@nozecone omgggg thank thank you so much my dear from my heart I really needed to understand this Thank u again that's meant a lot for me even that I don't know you
I like Shakespeare because he presents multiple simultaneous, complex and rich meanings. His not-pin-down-able-ness is part of his draw, at least for me.
Time and accidents described by shakespear refers to love as the Sonnet's subject
This is one of the sonnets that makes no attempt to convey any emotion or feeling; while it purports to be an expression of love, it is instead, of course, a kind of intellectual puzzle. It is in the nature of some of the banter between lovers in his plays, usually the female trying to outwit the male with challenging (but in their content, unimportant) questions, and the male demonstrating that he is witty enough to contrive answers. The assumption is that if he cannot come up with an ostensibly-logical response to a question such as, "Only yesterday you said you could not love me dearer, and yet today you say you love me more than ever - were you lying yesterday?" then he is unworthy of her love.
Plzz can you explain to me the 2nd part I didn't understand 😭
@@maryammarmar8276 Do you mean 'the 2nd part' of the sonnet or of my post?
@@nozecone the second part of the sonnet
@@maryammarmar8276 Yeah, it's difficult. His original statement had been, in effect, that he loved her so much, it would be impossible to love her more. But, now he has claimed to love her even more (now) than he did then - so he has to defend that contradiction. In ll. 5-9, his defence is that the 'accidents' of time frequently alter "vows", "the decrees of kings", "sacred beauty", and "sharp'st intents" - a bit of a weak argument, but he's just getting started. In ll. 9-12, he's making a kind of plea for understanding: since I had no idea what the future could bring, and feeling I could only be certain of the present moment, was it not reasonable of me to regard the present moment as the be-all and end-all? Then, the concluding couplet, which, if I understand it correctly, provides, finally, a logical explanation: you might say that, for example, a three-month-old infant is as fully-grown as a three-month-old can possibly be - but you still expect them to keep growing; similarly, a three-month-old love might be as fully-grown as it could possibly be, but, like the infant, it will keep growing. Hope that makes some sense ... !
@@nozecone omgggg thank thank you so much my dear from my heart
I really needed to understand this
Thank u again that's meant a lot for me even that I don't know you