129

The main idea of this poem is the reprecussions that come as a result of men following their lusty instincts. It fairly blatantly implies that to follow these lusty instincts is to literally have sex with the object of their affection. Besides the obvious statement of "lust in action," there are many indications of this, some of which even the footnotes suggest- "a waste (waist) of shame," "swallowed bait," "laid," "had, having, and in quest to have," "bliss," and so on. However, the part I found most interesting was not the lines that describe these actions and their reprecussions, but instead, the ending couplet that poses the question as to why we let these things continue.

The final couplet proposes an interesting thought that can extend even beyond the topic of this sonnet into a broad generalization about human nature. But within the text of the sonnet, the last line and a half perhaps inverts what the rest of the sonnet has so far achieved. The first three quatrains of the sonnet essentially prescribe power to women. They are bait "laid to make the taker mad" and the lust that their beauty provokes is "perjured, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame." Simply stated, a woman's beauty has the power to possess a man's mind and body. However, in the final couplet, Shakespeare completely usurps women and places men back in power. Maybe the "heaven" that Shakespeare refers to is not that of sexual bliss, but rather what causes men to desire it. The "heaven" then, in essence, is manhood, or more literally, the male genitalia. In itself, describing it as "heaven" glorifies the idea of being male. Obviously a good portion of a man's decisions are influenced by an organ other than the brain, but it can be extended even further than this into everything that manhood encapsulates- testosterone, agression, control, power, and the like. He is making the point that although the world sees the problem at hand, they refuse to shun a man's manhood and deny him what is presumably his right as the supposed superior gender. Although it leads them into this aforementioned hell, it is, after all, their essence. The manlier the better, right? Maybe, maybe not. Its almost a tease, really. He begins to distribute power to women and then in the last two lines, snatches it right back. Perhaps, he like most men, cannot stand to lose control or perhaps he is trying to compensate for the lack of control in the first three quatrains by highlighting male dominance in the final couplet. Whatever his intent, he drastically changes the direction of the poem.

A second interpretation that I found in these lines is almost exactly the opposite. If the heaven is seen as women and their beauty and sexuality, then he is not only assigning them power, but praise as well. He is stating that although they make men mad and lead them into sin, the world and men can't help but love them. Even with this perspective he still drastically shifts the mood of the poem. In the quatrians, although he makes women powerful, he makes them evil. In contrast, in the final couplet, he is unable to treat them with disdain. Whichever gender is assigned the term "heaven" all depends on who the reader perceives as the guilty party in these sexual acts-the man for being unable to control his desires or the woman for provoking them.

One other interpretation that I took from these two lines relates more to the broad generalization being made about human nature. The words "heaven" and "hell" are what make this such an interesting ending. If we assume that "heaven" refers to women, sexual desire, and sex itself, and hell the consequences, its brings us back to a question that has been raised on some level in many of our previous readings. If God made women beautiful, if he made sex pleasurable, if he gave people genitals for uses other than urination, then why should we deny and be punished for lusting and acting on this lust? He is not even so much questioning why we don't "shun the heaven" but instead, is merely making an observation. He knows why, we all know why.