Sonnet 146

Sonnet 146 by William Shakespeare

The body-soul dichotomy was a fairly common theme that was debated literarily from the middle ages to the Elizabethan period. Unbeknownst to many people William Shakespeare on multiple occasions referenced it. Of the literary works he composed, sonnet 146 is one of the most pronounced in its own right while being debated on multiple levels. It has such been correlated with others of his prior written sonnets and plays, sung as a hymn, recited at funerals, and compared against many pages and passages of the bible spanning from Genesis to Revelations but most likely viewed in terms of the Anglican Church. The Shakespeare Quarterly is a well-known journal that centers on all things Shakespearian. In 1976, Michael West, a writer and professor at the University of Pittsburg, went into great detail on this topic discussing Francis Davison’s Poetical Rhapsody “Tarquins in Lucrece” and Barbabe Googe’s translation of Paligenius’s “Zodiacus Vitae” all as a backdrop to solidify this argument that Shakespeare was a Christian writing on this subject (West, 111-116). During this essay, West went in belief was that sonnet 146, to be read correctly, must be viewed more from a Christian standpoint. His basis for this is that Shakespeare held that there is an ongoing conflict for which the body is attempting to subject the soul. Upon death though, the soul is victorious because, even though it goes without saying, the worms eat the body and loose the soul to be free (116).

The primary reason that West penned the article was in response to a man named Charles Huttar. About 6 years prior, he wrote an article entitled “The Christian Basis for Shakespeare Sonnet 146” in the Shakespeare Quarterly. In this fairly el...

... middle of paper ...

...ed by the clergy in the church, did not sit well with him. To justify his position, Huttar brings to bear Shakespeare’s own words in this sonnet by using the term “fading mansions”, which in this situation maybe read in a plurality of ways. From a strictly Judeo-Christian standpoint as the body being destroyed by time, but from heterodoxical vantage point, it would be read to be a satiric play on the clergy establishment of the indulgencies for the rich (362-363). According to Huttar, in a way, Shakespeare was cantankerous

To put it mildly, Charles A. Huttar and Michael West have diametrically opposing vantage points. While West argues for the Church, Huttar was for a humanist stand point. But no matter whether they disagreed on Shakespeare’s state of mind, they both would agree he was a master of sonnets weaving his ideals into 14 lines of pure literary genius.