Sonnet 130

William Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 130” is a satirical poem and a love poem. The sonnet meets the criteria for the former since the speaker makes fun of conventional beauty norms and how poets tend to idealize women in their works. The poem specifically makes fun of the sonnets of the 14th-century Italian poet Francesco Petrarca or, as he’s become known, Petrarch. In poems like “Sonnet 101,” Petrarch’s love does make him think of typically beautiful things, like “fresh roses” (Line 9). At the same time, “Sonnet 130” is a sincere love poem since the speaker truly cares about his romantic partner and their relationship. Although the series of comparisons appear unflattering, the speaker doesn’t want to insult his mistress. Instead, he wishes to illustrate how she truly is because how she is in real life is what makes their love “rare” (Line 13).

Based on the speaker’s unvarnished depiction of his mistress, it’s safe to say the speaker is an honest person. As Shakespeare likely wrote the poem somewhere between the late 1500s and early 1600s, it’s logical to refer to the speaker as a man even though the speaker doesn’t refer to himself with masculine pronouns. Although a person of any gender can have a mistress or a lover, the male speaker makes sense for the period, this sonnet, and the other sonnets in the series.

The Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt claims, “The reader is positively encouraged to identify Shakespeare with the speaker” (Will in the World. W. W. Norton and Company, 2004, p. 233). To bolster his thesis, Greenblatt cites “Sonnet 135,” which plays on the name Will. In Contested Will, James Shapiro warns against identifying Shakespeare as the speaker of the sonnets since it “collapses the very real distinction between the elusive persona of the speaker and Shakespeare himself” (41). Whether the speaker of “Sonnet 130” is or isn’t Shakespeare isn’t as critical as grasping why the poem’s speaker is a man who’s writing this poem to express a quirky and unconventional assessment of the woman he loves.

The speaker builds his depiction of his mistress on a series of comparisons. Thus, three literary devices are instrumental to the poem: juxtaposition, simile, and metaphor. Throughout the poem, the speaker juxtaposes the woman with other things. That is, he places her beside different things to spotlight their differences. Some of the comparisons are examples of similes since he makes them using connecting words like “like” and “than.” Some of the comparisons also qualify as a metaphor as sometimes the speaker makes comparisons without connecting words.

The first comparison is a simile since the speaker says, “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun” (Line 1). The speaker establishes the unconventional tone with this simile since he refuses to align the eyes of his beloved with the bright, majestic sun. The second simile advances the contrary tone since the speaker admits, “Coral is far more red than her lips’ red” (Line 2). The mistress lacks luscious, red lips. No one will mistake them for coral or a red stony sea substance.

The third comparison isn’t a simile, since there’s no connecting word. It’s also not technically a metaphor because the speaker isn’t using figurative language. Snow is “white,” and the woman’s “breasts are dun” (Line 3). Nonetheless, the juxtaposition maintains the seemingly unflattering tone of the poem since the woman’s breasts aren’t pure and white but grayish yellow. The fourth comparison is a metaphor since the mistress’s hair isn’t literally “black wires” (Line 4). The figurative “black wires” carry on the coarse tone of the poem since it defies the convention of comparing a beloved woman’s hair to gold.

The next juxtaposition takes up two lines: “I have seen roses damasked, red and white, / But no such roses see I in her cheeks” (Lines 5-6). The phrase “I have seen” adds a conversational tone to the poem, as it’s something someone might say in everyday interactions. It also adds to the poem’s blunt tone and the speaker’s upfront personality. Once again, the speaker directly negates a stereotypical comparison: His mistress’s cheeks aren’t roses.

The fifth comparison is more or less a simile since it uses the connecting word “than,” as in, “And in some perfumes is there more delight / Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks” (Line 7-8). The verb “reeks” has multiple meanings, including to issue or emit, or to stink. Both meanings work in this context, though the poem’s satirical nature suggests that “reeks” is meant to contrast with “perfumes”: The mistress doesn’t smell like a concocted scent because her breath has a less pleasant smell. The mistress’s voice isn’t stereotypically pleasant either. In the sixth comparison, the speaker declares, “I love to hear her speak, yet well I know / That music hath a far more pleasing sound” (Lines 9-10). When the mistress speaks, it’s not music to the speaker’s ears.

In the seventh and final comparison, the speaker uses another colloquial phrase, “I grant,” as in, “I grant I never saw a goddess go; / My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground” (Lines 11-12). The woman isn’t a female deity. She’s a person on earth—she’s a mortal bound by the laws of gravity—so when she moves about, she walks on the ground.

After the list of ostensibly harsh comparisons, the speaker discloses the reason why he didn’t compare his beloved in the grandiose language of other poets: “And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare / As any she belied with false compare” (Lines 13-14). The speaker isn’t trying to degrade his lover but to talk about her as she is. The speaker is an honest person in love with a real woman. He doesn’t love her because her eyes are like the sun or because she sounds like music. He loves her because he can’t compare her to these things. Ironically, or unexpectedly, what qualifies as demeaning is a positive connection to these historically beautiful symbols. His love for her is extraordinary because she defies standard tropes about adored women.