This entire description of Caliban shows the colonolist type of view that effects the play. The native of this island is described as a literal monster, much in the same way that Europeans would described the peoples of the lands the colonized in the Americas and Africa. The comment about bringing him to an emporear as a gift even reflects actual history, as it was common to bring people from different lands to the leaders of imperial nations as gifts for slavery or to be put in a zoo. There types of treatments of Otherized people are reflected and go without judgement in this play, showing how it is very much a product of its time.

In this line I wonder if Don Pedro is sorry for Beatrice being in. such a state of sadness, or for being in love with Benedick. I think it works in a comedic sense at a jab at Benedick if her feels bad for whatever poor soul falls in love with him. This is similar to tropes we see in media today, where friends of people will be like "what makes you like this guy?" or something to their friend's spouse. Again we see some roots of tropes appearing in Shakespeare's works.

I think this bit and the ass bit is meant to poke fun at Dogberry and the law system. Dogberry is obsessed with all the littlest interjections being taken down in the record. I am assuming he is being sarcastic in these moments and I think it is meant to highlight the different language the peasant people use from the law people and to a further extent the noble main characters. There is a hierarchy of their speech, with Conrade and Borachio speaking the least fancy and the nobles speaking in full poetic monologues. Dogberry makes fun of the vulgar speech that the poor use. Ultimately, the text makes fun of Dogberry, but still upholds the structures of class through highlighting the wealthy's more advanced and civil speech.

I like how hung up he gets on being called an ass. I just think it's funny. I do also think it helps to show this sort of class disparity between Dogberry, Claudio, etc. and the regular folk, like Conrade and Borachio. Earlier on he says something along the lines of "Do you know who I am? and you can ME and ass?" I think it shows the respect that the upper class demanded from the lower class at the time, but it still plays it up and pokes fun of these class distinctions and how easily the upper class were to offend make clutch their pearls. We see this class distinction earlier between Ursula and Hero when they are gossiping in front of Beatrice. Ursula says she does not want to speak out of turn, again, just hinting at the different standards between the classes.

Crotchets refers to two things here; quarter notes that are used in music and it also means an unfound belief. We are getting forshadowing about how nothing is going to be made up into a whole ordeal later in the play. In the second line here it seems as if Don Pedro is soaking in and enjoying the music and nothing that is going on. The conflict has not yet really started, so at the moment nothing is a good thing.

This line works as a serious of pun, adding to the comedy of the play, but it also brings up that occurrence of "nothing" and "noting" we mentioned in class. The first note is used as "notice" the second notes referring to his music. He then jokes that there is nothing of note, or of greatness of his note(music). This plays up the fact that there is "nothing" going on really and nothing to do much about (oh like the name of the play). As we see throughout the play, big deals are made of things that didn't happen, like Hero cheating, and a lot is made out of the original nothingness between Beatrice and Benedick, but that nothing was turned into love.

Here, Benedick talks about all the qualities he wasn't in a woman and how he will not marry until he finds this perfect woman. the fact that his expectations seem very high lends themselves to him not getting a wife, and keys the audience in that maybe he won't get married in this play. However, one interesting thing is that he wants his wife to be wise, which at the time I do not think would be something most men care about in wives. In fact, I feel like many men would prefer a woman of less opinions and knowledge. The fact that he likes this in a woman hints that maybe he will end up with Beatrice, who has been shown to be very quick-witted and independent.

This is a fun piece of wordplay. Demetrius plans on killing Lysander for "stealing" his bride, so he plans on killing him. "The other slayeth me" is in reference to the fact that Hermia has sort of broke his heart by rejecting him. Part of me wonders of demetrius actually loves Hermia or is just going along with society and wants more power. It does not seem as if he loves her, at least not as much as Lysander, and he does not seem particularly power hungry either. In the end I guess he does not matter because he ends up marrying Helena. This play surprised me a little bit as I though the end result would be in support of arranged marriage, with the action of the play making demetrius and Hermia fall in love. But instead, the play seems to come out in favor of Love, love that is not forced by society(But may be forced a little bit by magic.)

This is an interesting passage, especially because it is written in aabb rhyme. Hermia has just woken up from her sleep to find her lover, Lysander, has run off. When she finds him she is met with animosity, as he swears he loves someone else. I think the rhyme scheme is very important here. When Lysander is in his dreamlike state, he speaks to the women in rhyme. It seems to me almost like self parody, I feel like this has been done in media before where someone is put under a love spell and starts talking differently, like in poetry almost like a love sonnet. Hermia talks this way too, because she still loves Lysander and all four of them are in this altered reality caused by the faeries magic.

From our discussion of bawdy language and double meanings, i am going to say that this could have a double meaning. Considering this character's name is Bottom, he has the head of an ass, I do not think it so farfetched to think that when Titania talks about his cheeks that could be a joke to mean his butt. I also feel like the word "coy" as well had some sort of phallic or sexual meaning from our reading of that article.

I think this may be an example of bawdy language. Bottom saying "Not a word from me" makes me think of how in movies after a man sleeps with a woman and all his friends are like "what happened?!?" and the guy tries to be all gentlemanly and is like, "Can't say..." Think of the movie Grease. The phrase "The duke has dined" reads to me as synonymous with "I had sex." So in my reading it seems as if Bottom recalls his night with Titania not as a dream, but as it really happened and when he arrives late is just like, I got some, now let's go do this play.

This commentary by Theseus reminds the audience of the past events of the play. For a while, Bottom was transformed by Puck to have an ass' head and Titania fell in love with him. This line of Theseus taking the piss out of the play is ironic and serves as a sort of wink-wink moment for the audience to understand a joke/reference that the characters would not be aware of.

The fact that Hermia immediately faults Helena for Lysander not liking her doesn't sit right with me. The presumption that this woman was responsible for this shift and not the man reads to me as internal misogyny which I am sure was apparent in these times. Hermia does not consider that Lysander is a jerk and led her on just to run to Helena, doesn't consider that Lysander changed his mind of his own accord, she immediately believes that Helena enticed him or slept with him. The men are given the benefit of the doubt, while Hermia turns on one of her dearest friends. The fact that she got so made at Helena so quickly shows how deep rooted these assumptions of women are. This stereotype of women as seductresses who learn men away has been shown many times throughout history and literature. It is one of those rare moments where a woman is believed to have more power over men.

Lysander's referral to Hermia as an Ethiope is meant to be an insult regarding her darker complexion. We have talked about this sort of thing a lot, but again, we see how darker complexions were seen as negative qualities and could be used as an insult. Like in Othello, we see how these racial systems were already in place where white people thought less of black people. However, I think it may be of importance to note that Lysander, before the magic juice, was in love with Hermia despite this "negative" quality. I do not think this was intended, but the fact that Lysander only says this when he is in this trance makes me read it as a comment about how racial insults/hate/discrimination is the not the result of logical or empathetic thinking, but of animalistic, basic, and disgust driven thought processes. Again though, this is modern view of what I want this play to be saying, I do not think given the time period Shakespeare was arguing that racial biases are fickle and driven only by hate/ignorance.

This play has a lot of rhyming sections to it, mainly from the character Puck. This section though is spoken by Titania and I think is meant to add to the comedy of the situation. She is speaking in rhyme about her love for this man who has a donkey head. I think that this scene would not be as effective in terms of its comedy if Titania wasn't so totally over the top in her devotion to Bottom in this scene, so the rhyme scheme is incredibly important for that effect.

I feel like this is the peak of Lear's mental health showing. He finds Edgar naked and acting crazy and immediately thinks, "wow, this guys is just like me, I am certain his daughters were mean too." The fact that he immediately attaches himself to "Tom" shows that he isn't thinking very well. I think this is when Lear takes on the role of the crazy fool, and then almost in a comedic way, the actual fool sort of steps up to be the voice of reason. This is related to our conversation that we had about the fool in class.

IS this a way of Regan asking if Edmund had ever slept with Gonreil? Shakespeare really finds a million and one ways to talk about sex. The whole thing of Regan and Gonreil being in love withEdmund seems out of nowhere and in my mind is just there to make us think of these two characters as jealous women and reaffirm the structure that women shouldn't be in power.

The whole Regan and Gonreil both being in love with Edmund sort of comes out of no where for me. I think it's meant to be the final nail on the coffin to show that these women and bad and adulterous. It reads as a late add to the script. I do not think it was necessary, their support of eye gouging was enough to repel me from them and it played less into misogynistic stereotypes. I wonder if at the time this crime of adultery was more of a big deal to people, because in this current moment it seems as an unnecessary element.

I made the unfortunate choice of listening to the audiobook of this, so I got to hear Gloucester scream when his eyeballs were removed. This is the point that I stopped sympathizing with Regan and Goneril. I don't care how annoying your dad is, you don't rip out someone's eyes for helping him. I don't understand how they got in the mindset that they need to banish their father and that he must die. They were just literally like, "okay dad, you can keep 25 of your men," and now they are ripping out eyeballs. For being a benefactor of this action my care for them stops. So when the three of these people die later on, I really don't feel remorse even though I sympathized with them earlier.

Here is a bit of comedy. This reads to me as the old timey looking at the camera and telling a joke. The Fool is poking fun at how Lear is losing some of his marbles, specifically his mixing up that supper is eaten in the morning. It serves as a funny joke, but also the systems in place. It reminds us that Lear is older and not at the mental capacity he once was. I am sure that some people have said that he suffers from some mental illness. That thought stays in my mind through the play: Lear does not seem to be fully there mentally, so is he at complete fault for his actions?

I don't know the complete history of race relations and slavery during this time period, but the words that Othello uses to refer to himself, as "cursed slave" and asking to be whipped, paints the image of how we in America have treated black people in the past, as slaves to be whipped for labor. I think the comparison is actually accurate, in that Iago was the horrible slavemaster that abused Othello. However, I think that is my modern view of it, but the play seemingly faults Othello for his actions and not Iago. Iago did not die, but Othello did. Like we talked about in class today, the text seems to be more concerned about condemning Othello for rising above racial structures than for Iago being deceitful, murderous, and evil. Whereas today I think most people view Iago as the true villain, I think in Shakespeare's time Othello was looked on more as the monster in this story.

Even in this moments, Othello's actions are tied to his race. Emilia does not call him by name, but by "Moor" which connects his cruel deeds not to his manipulation by Iago, but to his race. I don't know if Emilia ever found out how much iago played in this, but I think she had some idea, so I find it interesting that she still sees Othello as being driven by animalistic values "intrinsic to his race" and not to Iago's trickery.

I find it interesting that Emilia has some belief that by her speaking out heaven, people, and devils would decry her. Even though she is going to tell the truth, I think this comes from the norm that women would be subservient and not speak over their husband. Here Emilia is disobeying Iago's wishes to go home in order to speak out about the lies he has told. She breaks from this power dynamic in order to do what's right, even though it was against the structures put in place to silence women at the time.

There are three female characters in this play and they are all characterized by their relationships with men and are valued based on their sexual behavior. Desdemona really only matters as a wife to Othello and the possibility of her adultery, Emilia is the wife of Iago and she does his bidding and her affairs are also speculated at, and then there is Bianca who only matters as the prostitute who has sex with Cassio. The fact that the only women are wives and prostitutes shows how the men in this play and men from this time period really only care about women in regards to sex.

I think it is interesting that Desdemona's response, when asked what she was, is that she is Othello's wife. She may have been like hey, he seems mad at me, best to remind him I am his wife," but I think it does highlight how Desdemona views herself and how society views her. Desdemona seems very content being Othello's wife and very much happy to serve him. I think this also shows how a married woman is viewed, as being first and foremost a wife. This is viewed as the most interesting and important aspect of Desdemona's life by society she lives in and the society in which this play is written.

Here we see the blatant sexism that was already ingrained in the minds of men. Even though Emilia knows Desdemona best and honestly provided just as much as evidence as Iago did, because Iago gave barely any evidence, Othello believed Iago immediately, but views Emilia's word as less than and not as valuable. He calls her a whore and literally says that because she is a simple bawd, "that cannot say as much," meaning her opinions are not as important or trustworthy.

The term Promethean heat is a reference to the Greek myth of Prometheus, the titan who gave fire to man and as punishment has his liver eaten by a bird everyday. This shows again that historical concept of the reemergence of Greek and Roman Classics during this era. Othello's story kind of reflects the Prometheus myth in that they both get punished in the end for their actions. The reference to the heat could be seen as referring to "truth": by learning about this affair it was like a light turning on that made him see something he didn't want to see. Similarly, by giving fire to the humans that also caused a lot of problems.

This is another fun word play that helps foreshadow stuff. Iago uses the word lie to describe Cassio and Desdemona supposedly sleeping together. Lie also happens to mean tell an untruth, something that Iago is doing in this very moment. Shakespeare really is a clever little man.

This clown part serves as comic relief to break apart the drama of this tragedy. It also serves a similar purpose as the conceit of a sonnet, to highlight the wit of the writer. The clown uses a lot of word play and comedy in this scene and his previous appearance that showcase just how smart Shakespeare is. The word play on "lying" serves to highlight and foreshadow the impact lying and truth plays in this show as well.

I do think it is interesting how the word black already came to mean evil or dirty in this time. When Othello comments on Desdemona's image now being as black as him, it seems as if Othello is aware of the cultural stigma that is around black people. It brings up the idea that people in the play expected Othello to be this savage man that was different from them. In the beginning the senator was very mad that his daughter was marrying Othello because he was a Moor, and that already had strong negative connotations, the same ones we see throughout the rest of history. It makes me wonder if this play had a negative effect on the culture of England. Were people now more readily to think of black man as quick to through into a rage? While yes the play shows the humanity of Othello and how he was tricked, this still feels like tropes I have seen of black men being almost like werewolves: normal, but then their "true, savage" nature kicks in and they are murderers and rapists. Basically what I am saying is, I think this very influential piece of fiction helped build a stereotype around black man, one that has last for centuries.

Here Iago says that he thinks Othello may have slept with his wife. This idea of jealousy and adultery is sort of transferred onto Othello as revenge, this is done through iago manipulating him into thinking Desdemona was cheating on him. Iago could have gone the route Othello did, by killing his supposedly-adulterous wife and the man she slept with, but instead he chooses to make them hang themselves. He does say he isn't quite sure if this is true, but he chose to believe it to fuel his hatred. I feel like this all could have been avoided had they talked it out, and Iago could have been left alone to whine about not having a promotion.

I find this line interesting because even though iago hates Othello, he still recognizes that he is, at this point, a good man. He doesn't hate him for any personal reasons, only that he has more power than him. I think that is the true root of why Iago hates him. I think Iago doesn't understand why a Moor should be given so much power when he is around. Like we talked about in class, I think this demonstrates that beginning of racist thinking that still is around to day. It seems like Iago can't quite say, but there is just something about an African man being more powerful, having the better wife, that he cannot stand. That connection between Othello's race and status is what drives Iago to such horrible ends.

Just a note a found this very found when I was reading this. I think Roderigo is sort of the butt of a lot of jokes throughout the play and in terms of Iago's giant master plan, his promises to Roderigo are at the bottom of the list of priorities. He's sort of forgotten and comes up later to ask why Desdemona doesn't care about him, to which Iago continues to use him like a pawn as we see her. He reminds me of Jan from the Brady Bunch (Why does Othello get all the nice drawers? Why does Othello get all the trophies? Why does Othello get Desdemona? Why does Othello get everything?)

Here in the use of Cupid we see that call back to the classics. Later on in the play I believe Othello refers to Desdemona as like a Cherub, another little angel baby from the classics. I think this sort of alludes to that sort of idealistic Love that may be associated with the classics. I think Desdemona and Othello did have an almost archetypal love story befitting that capital "L" Love we have talked about, but it was eventually corrupted.

I think the Senator's insistance of Othello using charms to lure in Desdemona is, one, kind of a stereotype against black people, but more importantly, a foreshadowing of what is to come. Later on in the play Othello tells the tale of his mother's handkerchief, which if it was to be given away would cause his father to loathe her. Whether that story is true, we do see an almost curse-like effect fall on Othello when he believes that Desdemona is cheating on him and has lost the handkerchief. It makes you wonder if there was some mystical thing going on.

The use of the Chorus is reminiscent of the way classical Greek playwrights structured their plays. This shows that cultural return to the classics like we talked about in class with the looking back at Plato, Aristotle, and moral criticism. The Chorus sets the scene throughout the play and gives a similar vibe to those old plays.

Here we see Henry's connection to religion following the battle. He thanks God for protecting his Englishmen in battle. This combined with the disparity between the amount killed on each side supports this idea that the english monarch is a manifestation of the divine on Earth that was popular during Shakespeare's time. By constantly linking Henry to God it makes him seem all the more powerful and otherworldly , an idea seen further in his dealings with the French post-battle when it becomes clear that he is in charge.

This line has to do with similar themes we talked about in class, especially the payoff of Katherine being set up almost exclusively as a body and metaphor for conquering France. I have to imagine that the phrases "leap-frog," "vaulting into my saddle with my armor on my back," and "quickly leap into a wife" all have to do with sex. Henry is set up to conquer Katherine sexually as he did France. His turns of phrases also remind me of the eloquent nature of sonnets in this declaration of love. He is using his words to try and show his cleverness to Katherine, even though she does not speak English.

This line continues Henry's argument that there is an intrinsic Glory that comes from war. He is convinced of this higher prize that comes from fighting, that the glory that comes from it will be remembered for years to come. Similar to our discussions of moral criticisms Henry thinks that the Glory from war is a higher form that he needs to impart to his soldiers.

Here, Williams makes the case against henry's idea of the glory of war. Henry voices his opinion that the King and his men share an equal sense of danger and will take glory and honor from the battle, but Williams argues that the whole battle is being fought by common men over a squabble of the king and they share little stake in the outcome, but their lives are on the line. Shakespeare paints Henry as being correct in his view of war, as he is shown being more eloquent and educated, while Williams view is more simple. Henry seemingly has a moral critical view of war, seeing a supposed higher Truth about the subject.

Pistol offers some comedic in this scene by singing some sort of sea shanty. Pistol is often the comedic relief in any scene he's in, even later on in battle he manages to swingle money out of a Frenchmen under the threat of death. Scenes like this help to break up the heavy and serious scenes that other characters, like Henry V, take up.

This soliloquy is given just as the battle is about to begin. Henry V is basically saying that he plans to destroy the city of Harfleur in order to take his claims and get back at the Dauphin. These last two lines he poses a question, will the French back down, or will they face his wrath.The rhyming of "avoid" and "destroy'd" help to emphasis his point and it works: the Governor of Harfleur yields the town to Henry V who then fortify it against the French. This long soliloquy characterize how important this cause is too Henry and how he has grown from a naive prince to a hardened and brutal king.

I wanted to highlight this part for two reasons. Firstly, this scene represents a comedic break that Shakespeare wanted to add probably as a buffer between the many more grim and serious battle scenes. This entire scene also helps as foreshadowing and introduces themes. This scene is all about Katherine, who will later marry the English monarch, trying to learn english. It foreshadows the gradual change of power from the French to the English. Katherine will be essentially given up to Henry in the name of diplomacy . This scene not only provides funny word play, but allows the audience to see early on the relationship between the french and the english.

This script, especially in the chorus sections, are very meta. The job of the Chorus is to set the scene and speak directly to the audience, so it is inherent in the role. In this play specifically the Chorus is very forthright with the audience, asking them to image the battlefields of France, as that would be very hard to create on stage. By inviting the audience to imagine certain aspects of the scene, they are inviting the audience to take a part in the show, to play a more active role than they would play in other roles. Along with this, the chorus is not just asking them to take part in the show, but in the history of it, and in the history of their country. By having this open dialogue with the audience Shakespeare is saying that the audience is a part and a result of these happenings and emphasizes the importance of learning this history to its audience. Like we talked in class, this adds to the propaganda like nature of these history plays.

These four lines rhyme to add emphasis to the last lines of the speech. "Before" and "Door" rhyme, as does "thought" and "brought." These lines place emphasis on two things for me. The first being Henry's religiousness, as he mentions that his actions will be before God. Henry's devotion to religion is shown further throughout the play. This line also places emphasis on Henry's determination to invade France and specifically "chide this Dauphin at his father's door." This sort of leads the audience to draw comparisons between the Dauphin and Henry V, where the Dauphin is naive and immature, shown through sending tennis balls, whereas Henry v is very serious in his dealings with foreign nations. Like we talked about in class, Henry V used to be immature and like the Dauphin, but now he is a more serious leader.

In this section the Archbishop of Canterbury uses a metaphor to compare British army to a hive a honeybees. As he describes, honeybees are highly organized and able to divide up tasks amongst its many members in order to maintain a successful colony. The Archbishop says that England is like this as well, able to divide armies to attack France and protect itself from possible invasion on the home-front. He uses this rhetoric in order to convince Henry V and the members of the court that the English army could very well take the king's claims in France without falling victim to Scottish invasion. This is very successful in convincing the King.

This sonnet is a lot more somber than the last ones. Here he seems to be questioning whether caring about him self and the dark mistress is worth it. He goes back again to aging, a theme we haven't seen in a while, and compares it to repairing a house. He questions if he should continue his pursuit and search for love if it will be cut short by death.

I feel like this poem is one of those ones where Shakespeare is trying to show off, setting up the whole poem as if the lady is saying she hates the speaker. In the last line though, he offers a twist where she says she doesn't hate him. What a great trickster Shakespeare is. It also seems like this poem is feeding Shakespeare's ego, how could anyone ever hate him??

The speaker is trying to get to this woman by just being one of her many partners, even though in previous poems we saw that he was infatuated with her and in love with her in some way. Is he going this way because he thinks it's more realistic, or is he hoping that she will eventually just fall in love with him. If there is one thing we have learned throughout these sonnets, it's that Shakespeare thinks he is a great writer and a a great lover, so who could ever resist him right?

The word "Will" is said 12 times in this poem and from reading evmoran's analysis of this poem, I understand the sexual nature of the word. It being in quotes and the repetition of it definitely does read as a sort of wink wink nudge nudge type of word. The repetition of it in multiple contexts is to try and get the dark mistress to catch onto his intent.

The conceit of this poem is a comparison of his devotion to this woman and a sort of financial transaction. This is shown in the use of the words "mortgag'd, bond, statute, sue, debtor." This love he has for this woman seems to be torturous and taking a toll on him. This is a great metaphor because the figurative financial/legal toll is very extreme, as extreme as the emotional toll.

There has been a lot of emphasis on this woman's eyes. In 127 he said they were born beautiful despite not being light. In 132 he says he loves them and wishes they would pity him. Everything else about her does not describe in such a flattering way. Even her eyes though are not without dejection, as he says they are nothing like the sun. I am beginning to think that he is attracted to her eyes in not a physical sense, but they are out of the traditional beauty standards and intrigue him. When he said they were nothing like the sun, my mind when to think that they are like the moon: mysterious, dark, cold, and enticing him in a new way.

Asking the woman to pity him because she does not love him and he very much does. If she can at least give him the satisfaction of her feeling sorry for him, that will mean so much more to him than any beautiful, fair-skinned person who loves him. This series contrasts heavily with the beautiful youth poems. Here the speaker bends over backward for the smallest thing about the dark mistress, even though she is not beautiful or of good character. He throws out all previous love for the archetypal fair-skinned beauties in favor of this mysterious lady.

He is saying that there are some people who are very fair/beautiful and that accounts for their poor behavior and rudeness. It's funny in this poem because he has set up that this mistress is not traditionally beautiful and yet she finds a way to be cruel. So if she's not pretty and seemingly of poor character, as shown in "In nothing art thou black save in thy deeds," what does he like about her??

The speaker uses many different comparisons in this poem, rather than just one extended metaphor. Here he compares his mistress to many things in the natural world, like coral, snow, and roses. While in previous poems the speaker's subject was described as like these pretty things, here the subject is contrasted against them. He uses the same tools as before, natural metaphors, but instead of saying he loves this person because of those beautiful, natural features like he did in the youth poems, here he says he loves this woman despite her less than pleasant features.

These two lines both repeat the "B" sound which indicates an importance of these lines. The emphasis of this tells us the argument of the poem: That blackness, or darker features, were once not considered beautiful, but now blackness is considered beautiful. The repetition of "Black" and "Beauty" and other B words in the first four lines drive the point home.

Throughout the poem the poet talks about how traditionally darker features were not seen as beautiful, but now, everyone says that this dark mistress is the example of beauty and beauty "should look so."

The fifth and tenth syllables in this line rhyme, which doesn't happen that often.

Is this supposed to be word play? Remains as in his spirit remains which he mentioned a few lines up, and his actual physical remains, which he also referenced when they are getting eaten by worms. I feel like it could be because a pun is a pretty good show of wit.

Whereas the conceit of many other sonnets was to show the writer's wit, this one shows more of Shakespeare's selflessness and care. He wants his lover to move on when he dies, which is very noble, as many people may find it awkward if someone they loved found another partner after they died. In the words of Cher, Shakespeare does believe in life after love. At least his partner's life moving on after their love is dead.

A return to the vocabulary he used in some of the first sonnets we read, using nature and the changing of seasons as a metaphor for aging and death.

Continuing from the previous sonnet, the speaker goes on to say that when he dies, his lover should move on from him. I do have to wonder if this is sincere or just a tactic to get the subject of his attraction to think that he is selfless. It seems like something the speaker may do to get with this person, previous poems have certainly had more cheesy ways of trying to woo this person.

Interestingly, this poem seems to stray from Shakespeare's ideas from previous verses. In others, he made it clear that a sonnet is an excellent way to remember someone after they have aged and died. In this one, however, when talking about his own death, the speaker wished that his love does not return often to this poem as he feels it will make them depressed or lonesome. He seems to be more concerned with this person's feelings than his own notoriety and would rather this person let their love die.

The conceit of this poem is both similar and different to ones before. It has the similar theme of aging as other ones, but instead of using natural changes, Shakespeare uses war. He says that through war this person will go unscathed, at least in their lover's eye. I also imagine that the word "this" in line 14 refers to this sonnet, again saying that his writing will preserve her.

I wonder if his love and the love of his friend are different. Is the speaker's love that more Romantic, almost fairy tale type of love or the more lustful type we discussed in class. Which type of love would be a greater betrayal for his partner and friend to take part of?

This is, I think, the first of these love sonnets we've read that seems to handles the speaker being possibly rejected by a love interest

Interesting rhyme scheme of having all four lines rhyme.

The 5th and 10th syllables in this line rhyme which is fun.

The ranks he mentions are other poets. When the speaker or other fellow poets die, even if they don't have children necessarily , they will live on through their work. This will also put them in company with other great artists.

Going back to referencing poetry and how literature can shape and preserve someone.

Referring to a contemporary of his who is all inspired by a love interest to write poetry.

Could this be saying that the love and happiness he thought was gone, are manifesting in a different way or in a new person?

Is this religious love a reference to the type of capital "L" Love we talked about in class? Is he saying that this traditional love has made him sad, as he says it sole a tear from his eye?

The person or people that he has loved are a ll gone, except this new person. This could be a new romantic partner, or maybe a child, since he talked so much in previous sonnets of children being an extension of a person. Not sure.

This line seems to reference a person that he loved that he has lost, through a break up or maybe death. This is a small connection to the previous poems that were very focused on love and the preservation of someone's beauty.

This poem follows along with the previous one to highlight the speakers' sorrows.

These two lines present the shift of the speaker being depressed and regretting his past to his sorrows being diminished when he thinks of this friend.

He compares his rising spirits to a lark arising at day. Another reference to the natural world.

This seems to be a shift of the speaker being in an almost self-loathing state and disappointed with his life. Then he thinks about this person and it lifts his spirits.

Shakespeare's devotion to his love is highlighted by his plea for Time to leave that person alone. He even says he can take any sweet thing from the world as long as they leave his love untouched.

This line is sort of different from Shakespeare's previous descriptions of earth and nature. Here he states that the destruction of nature, the transformation into winter, is something done to the earth by the earth. It describes a grotesque image of mother earth seemingly destroying everything she has created.

Explicitly states that his love will be immortalized in his writings. This relates to our small discussion of part of Shakespeare's voice being his own fame. If Shakespeare was a nobody writing this poems, his love would be forgotten, but because he was already an icon in his old time, he can confidently declare her immortality in his work.

Starts the poem with a similar conceit as many of the others, that beauty fades and everyone is a victim of aging. (The usually progression of this idea though gets altered in this specific poem though.)

Shakespeare takes a stance that he hasn't taken in the other sonnets we have read as of yet, that this person''s beauty can go on after they age. This even goes without any mention of them having his children!

Just like summer, a person's beauty will eventually fade into a cold, less attractive and lively, winter state.

Just when I thought he was over the child thing, Shakespeare says that a child is the only way for this woman to be preserved, as people may not take the sonnets written about her a s truth.

Shakespeare sort of predicts that people will read his sonnets and think his descriptions of this person's beauty is a little much. Which, in fairness, I have been doing.

Prognosticate means to prophesy, and along with mentioning astronomy and luck, this sonnet touches more on the supernatural.

When this subject of Shakespeare's attraction dies, meaning from his life will be gone. He talked about how knowledge, truth, and beauty all derives from this person, so when they are gone his life will be without those things.

Shakespeare is offering a lot of flatteries towards this person, detailing how his knowledge and enjoyment of art is from them.

Shakespeare uses the metaphor of letting a house go to shambles to describe a woman letting herself age without having children. He suggests that having children is the only way for her to preserve a legacy. Kind of misogynistic in the way he describes childbearing as the only way for an aging woman to have beauty.

Shakespeare is inviting this woman to consider what she is going to leave behind after she ages and dies. From reading sonnets II and XII, I can assume this will have something to do with childbearing.

In my first reading of this, it seems that Shakespeare is inviting this woman to have a child in order to preserve her beauty in some way. In my mind he's also kind of inviting himself into this to have a child with her.

Similarly to Sonnet II, this sonnet that offers the idea that having children is the only way to preserve your beauty and self after you die. I find this kind of funny because I think Shakespeare's beauty and spirit is best preserved through his writings which have kept him around for centuries.

This line takes a very somber view of aging, saying that it pretty much just ends in death. Other sonnets are a little more deft in not painting it as grimmly.

Shakespeare uses the transformation of the natural world into winter as a metaphor for aging, something he did in Sonnet V.

"Tatter'd weed" is a reference to the natural world, which is a thing Shakespeare seemingly likes to do. This phrase also illustrates the idea that aging is a detriment to someone's beauty.

Now that this person has child, that has restored their beauty in some way, maybe not physically, but the sight of their youthful offspring brings them joy and the same satisfaction of being young themselves.

This line refers to a transformation of beauty in a person, in this case when someone has a child. This new youthful child is an extension of the parent's beauty and proves that they are beautiful.