The Argument…

….is central to understanding the Sonnets as a complete oeuvre. It is an off-shoot of rhetoric. Now each individual sonnet necessarily has its own argument otherwise it wouldn’t go anywhere or say any thing.

But my argument here is that the cumulative argument of these individual arguments leaves little room for any hidden argument i.e. there is enough matter to consider without adding any further argument.

Let’s defer to Martin Wiggins again:

‘The study of rhetoric gave authors an instinct not only for the order of composition but also for the arrangement of the materials. Schoolboys learned techniques of sequence and digression, repetition and balance, comparison and juxtaposition; they learned how to manipulate listeners by varying the amount of time given to a particular point, by introducing the unexpected, and by escalating to a climax. And what rhetoricians did with words and sentences, playwrights did with characters and scenes.’

Sh’s Sonnets are obviously not as complicated in plot and structure as his plays or poems, nor are they merely mechanisms of rhetorical construction. They are somewhere in between, using the knowledge of both, informing the argument he develops.

Accepting the fact that they were written during the 1590’s with the possibility of being revised up until their publication in 1609, they span the changes in rhetorical style that earmark the changes happening in the poetry and theatre of the day.

Accepting that these sonnets were spoken to a select audience of ‘private friends’ as well as being circulated in manuscript, we and they must look to how beautifully, or less value-oriented, how well-constructed they are.

Delivery of a sonnet demands total mastery of its rhetorical framework and a sense of its duplicity in being spoken. The argument mirrors an ‘imaginary’ inner world with a ‘real’ outer world. It seems to tell a truth about the lies inherent in loving.

Remember these are audiences that think nothing of attending a play to listen for hours at a time. They went for the story, maybe for the actors, but definitely not for the author.

A sonnet is over in a minute. This fact convinces me that many of these sonnets were written in pairs or triplets or series. For instance in Sonnets 1-17, I see 5+6, 9+10, 15-17 as deliberate, culminating in the shift of argument in 18.

The argument of these first 17 sonnets is to convince a beautiful fair young man to marry and have offspring or lose his legacy to the world; both at large and for him personally. The argument shifts in 18 to immortalising the FYM through the poet’s lines.

This argument in turn will be mangled as the FYM interacts with the poet’s Mistress and hires a Rival Poet. Despite these other characters our poet’s argument remains remarkably stable. This interaction though allows the poet to throw in extra layers of inner life to deepen his argument.

So when we finally get to the use of the word ”argument” we see that it is a continuation of the argument from the get-go. Let’s look and see what the sonnet sequence says:

Sonnet 38:
HOw can my Muse want subject to invent
While thou dost breathe that pour’st into my verse,
Thine own sweet argument, too excellent,
For every vulgar paper to rehearse:

Sonnet 76:
O know sweet love I always write of you,
And you and love are still my argument:
So all my best is dressing old words new,
Spending again what is already spent:

Sonnet 79:
I grant (sweet love) thy lovely argument
Deserves the travail of a worthier pen,
Yet what of thee thy Poet doth invent,
He robs thee of, and pays it thee again,

Sonnet 100:
Return forgetful Muse, and straight redeem,
In gentle numbers time so idly spent,
Sing to the ear that doth thy lays esteem,
And gives thy pen both skill and argument.

Sonnet 103:
ALack what poverty my Muse brings forth,
That having such a scope to show her pride,
The argument all bare is of more worth
Than when it hath my added praise beside.

Sonnet 105:
Fair, kind, and true, is all my argument,
Fair, kind and true, varying to other words,
And in this change is my invention spent,
Three themes in one, which wondrous scope affords.