sidney

One of the sonnets that I found most interesting was 28. Although someone could probably make the argument that even though he is rejecting the use of allegory here that he is still somehow using it, I like to think that he really is just writing about love. The line "I beg no subject to use eloquence" makes him seem almost bitter that people would use love as an allegorical device for something else. I get the impression that he wishes he didn't have this love to be his muse because it is causes him agony. I think he really is saying that hes not just using love to show off, but that he really feels strongly about it and is simply expressing those emotions. Its a breath of fresh air to not have to sift through a dozen layers of crap to find the actual intended meaning. Why don't poets ever just say what they mean?

The other sonnet I found intriguing was 47. He poses a very interesting question here as to whether or not we are born slaves to love or if we are the ones who torture ourselves by submitting to it. Why do we willingly allow ourselves the agony of being in love? Should we, as he seems to propose at the end, deny our feelings in order to protect ourselves from this agony? Or does denial even protect us? He seems to try really hard to let go of his feelings and move on but no matter how unrequited his love, it has such power over him that he just can't let it go. I think his sonnets were sincere and insightful and much more enjoyable than what we have read thus far.