You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 18 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 is one of the most recited — and one of the most argumentative — poems in English. It is often read at weddings, which is slightly strange: it is not a celebration of a particular love but a philosophical definition of what love, properly understood, must be. The poem reads like a closing statement in a courtroom. It defines, it denies, and it stakes everything on being right.
It belongs to Shakespeare's Sonnets (1609), a sequence of 154 poems addressed variously to a beautiful young man, a rival poet and a "Dark Lady". The precise biographical situation is unresolved, but for the purposes of this poem it does not matter. Sonnet 116 does not name a beloved. It argues, in abstract, that true love is constant.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Poet | William Shakespeare (1564–1616) |
| Date | c.1595–1609 (published 1609) |
| Form | Shakespearean sonnet |
| Metre | Iambic pentameter |
| Rhyme scheme | ABAB CDCD EFEF GG |
The Shakespearean sonnet — three quatrains and a closing couplet — was perfected (though not invented) by Shakespeare. The form is engineered for argument: it allows a problem to be set up, a development in the second quatrain, a turn or complication in the third, and a punchline in the final couplet.
The speaker refuses to "admit impediments" to the marriage of true minds. He then gives a negative definition: love is not love if it changes when it finds change. True love, by contrast, is constant — it is "an ever-fixed mark", an unmoving star by which lost ships can navigate. Love does not submit to Time, that "bending sickle" of years. Love lasts until "the edge of doom". The closing couplet wagers everything on the argument: if this is false, the speaker never wrote, and no one ever loved.
The speaker is a lecturer or counsel for love. He is not seducing, not confessing, not mourning — he is arguing. The voice is public rather than intimate. The pronouns are impersonal: "love is not love", not "you are not mine".
This detachment is part of the poem's power. By removing the particular beloved, Shakespeare elevates the argument to a general definition. Any reader can step into the speaker's position.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Lines | 14 |
| Metre | Iambic pentameter |
| Rhyme | ABAB CDCD EFEF GG |
| Quatrains | 3 |
| Couplet | Closing, rhymed, decisive |
graph TD
A[Quatrain 1: what love is not - it does not alter] --> B[Quatrain 2: what love is - ever-fixed mark, star]
B --> C[Quatrain 3: love is not Time's fool; lasts till doom]
C --> D[Couplet: if wrong, I never wrote, no one loved]
The structure is crucial to how the poem argues.
There is a volta — a turn — between the third quatrain and the couplet, though some readers locate it earlier. The couplet's extreme claim functions as the poem's sealing move.
Navigation metaphor. "An ever-fixed mark", "the star to every wandering bark", "Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken." Shakespeare draws on the vocabulary of Elizabethan seafaring. Ships navigate by fixed marks and by the Pole Star; love, he argues, is the same — a reliable point of reference in a moving world. The metaphor carries a subtle implication: love does not need to be fully understood to be useful. Its height can be measured even though its "worth's unknown".
Time as antagonist. "Love's not Time's fool." "His bending sickle's compass" evokes the traditional Father Time with his scythe — he cuts down bodies ("rosy lips and cheeks"), but not love. "Brief hours and weeks" are the small units Time deals in; love operates on a different scale.
Absolute vocabulary. "Ever-fixed", "never shaken", "no man ever loved". The poem deals in total statements. There is no hedging. This absoluteness is what gives the poem both its grandeur and, for some modern readers, its slight severity.
Negative definition. The opening operates by negation. "Love is not love / Which alters when it alteration finds." The poem defines love by what it is not.
| Theme | How it operates |
|---|---|
| True love as constancy | Love is defined as that which does not change |
| Love and Time | Time takes beauty but does not take love |
| Love as navigation | Love orients the lover through change |
| The argument of love | The poem is a rhetorical defence, not a confession |
| Absolute idealism | The closing couplet wagers everything on the claim |
A challenging modern reading notices that the poem is entirely abstract and makes no space for real relationships, which do change, which do involve impediments, and in which love is, in practice, often tested. That contrast with more grounded love poems — Valentine, I Wanna Be Yours, Love's Dog — is one of the most productive comparisons in the cluster.
| Partner | Shared ground | Productive contrast |
|---|---|---|
| She Walks in Beauty | Idealised, elevated praise; formal control | Byron describes a body; Shakespeare defines a principle |
| Valentine | Attempt to define what real love is | Duffy rejects Shakespeare's idealism openly |
| I Wanna Be Yours | Devotion as love's essence | Cooper Clarke grounds devotion in domestic objects |
Both Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 and Duffy's Valentine attempt to define love against the background of cliché, but they arrive at almost opposite conclusions. Shakespeare's speaker refuses to "admit impediments" and elevates love into the cosmic — "an ever-fixed mark", "the star to every wandering bark" — the navigational metaphor placing love beyond the reach of change. The sonnet's three ABAB CDCD EFEF quatrains and final decisive couplet stage an argument whose formal completeness matches its absolute content. Duffy's Valentine, by contrast, is deliberately unruly — free verse, short lines, blunt imperatives ("Take it"). She rejects Shakespeare's abstractions and offers an onion: real, embodied, capable of "a fierce kiss" and of tears. Where Shakespeare's love is unshakeable by Time, Duffy's love is explicitly capable of harm — "lethal", "possessive". Both poems, in different centuries, define love by what it is not: Shakespeare says love is not change; Duffy says love is not a cliché. The two agree that love's real definition is worth fighting for; they disagree about what the real definition is.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 18 lessons in this course.