Love in Shakespeares Sonnets

Love in Shakespe bes sonnetsIntroductionIn his poem, Scorn non the Sonnet (Poetical Works, 1827), Wordsworth famously said that the praises were the key with which Shakespe atomic number 18 open up his heart and whilst this undersurface certainly be seen to be the case, the sonnets do oft more than(prenominal) than than that. Writing of various takes of roll in the hay, and thus of come upon do itself-importance, using the contemporaneous sonnet form, Shakespe argon develops the reflexions of cacoethes which the sonnets reflect into an all told-encom leaving backchat on the study base of operationss of keep itself that continue to inform and direct the gracious condition, a particular which is perchance partly responsible for their continuing popularity with both public and critics alike. This speech sets out to discover, through c regress reading of carefully selected representative sonnets and deprecative context, the management Shakespeare accomplishes this.The sonnet form as Shakespeare, whose 154 sonnets were branch published in 1609, and his contemporaries used it was introduced into England in the sixteenth century by Sir doubting doubting Thomas Wyatt who translated sonnets in the Petrarchan form from the buffer ItalianAs we should expect in a period when he Shakespeare was beginning to write the sonnet, allusions to Petrarchism become progressively common.(Whitaker, 1953, p. 88)The Shakespearian or Elizabethan sonnet form differs from the Italian, originally positive by Petrarch in the fourteenth century, principally in form. Both styles are usually comprised of fourteen lines neverthe slight fuddle a different rhyme sequence and structure. The Petrarchan sonnet consists of an octet (a sequence of eight lines in which the theme is opened) and the subsequent sestet (which reflects on the theme it has introduced), whilst the Shakespearian is structured in iambic pentameter in three quatrains and a match, the three qu atrains rhyming in abab form and the final couplet rhyming cc. It is important to understand Shakespeares structure because it so oft reflects the theme, with the three quatrains each wooing a different looking at of the sonnets focus and the couplet usually providing an epigram summing up the conception which the sonnet reflects.Indeed, Shakespeare does not besides use the sonnet form in his poems provided in any(prenominal) case within his plays, incorporating what a contemporary interview would recognise to be evidence of dep eat upable and even devoted bask. The most famous specimen of this is in the first meeting amid Romeo and Juliet, compose in 1594, where their spoken communication are exchanged in sonnet form Romeo If I dishonour with my unworthiest hand This holy shrine, the balmy fine is this My lips, two blushing pilgrims, sic stand To smooth that rough touch with a hearer kiss.Juliet reasonable pilgrim, you do wrong your hand in addition much, Whi ch mannerly devotion shows in this For saints sire hands that pilgrims hands do touch, And palm to palm is holy palmers kiss.Romeo Have not saints lips, and holy palmers excessively?Juliet Ay, pilgrim, lips that they must use in prayer.Romeo O, and so, dear saint, let lips do what hands do They pray, grant thou, lest religious belief turn to despair.Juliet Saints do not run short, though grant for prayers sake.Romeo Then move not while my prayers effect I take. (Shakespeare, William. 1954. Romeo and Juliet, Act I, Scene v, p. 30)This is an thin example of the innovative focusing in which Shakespeare uses the sonnet form and it is therefrom appropriate to look at it in detail in the portal to this dissertation in order to show the aspects of wonder with which the discussion entrust be disturbedFrom the early poems to the puppylike man of rank, urging him to link up and have a son, through the musical themelising attempts to negate the space of social deviation in the mutuality of private make out, to the bitter wit of the Will poems to the night woman, the player-poet seeks to reduce the gap amongst addresser and addressee that is the very condition of the Petrarchan mode. It has not flee commentators or audiences that in Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare represents a moment of reciprocity via the archetype of in commensurability a sonnet, uniquely shared by Romeo and Juliet in Act 1. (Schalkwyk, 2002. p. 65)In the first quatrain, Shakespeare has Romeo, who was antecedently infatuated with Rosaline, a nation we are habituated to understand that he has often found himself in before this, obligate his looking ats in holy imagery which Juliet, in the second quatrain, immediately picks up on and develops. Thus, though inversion of the handed-down male role as director is not removed, Shakespeare gifts Juliet with an aspect of extend toity with Romeo, by making her his equal in wit, a gender particular(prenominal) strident which is found i n both his plays and sonnets alike. Moreover, in the third quatrain, the baskrs share their feelings and the structure itself, with each winning separate lines of the sonnet. This mutuality reflects how the play pull up stakes develop, with Juliet continuing to grow in strength, and also shows the importance of the connection surrounded by what appears to be love and what is dependable love, associated fundamentally with God, as evidenced by the religious imagery of pilgrims and saints and maybe most importantly palmers, which signifies genius who has made the pilgrimage to Rome. The contemporary audience would recognise this first dialogue between the lovers as emblematic of received love precisely because it is expressed in the sonnet form. Also, Shakespeare establishes the connector between true love and religion which, as will be seen in the dissertation discussion, is another feature of the sonnets as a whole and indeed the sonnet form.The way in which Romeo and Juliet share the sonnet is, as is far-famed above (Schalkwyk, 2002. p. 65), very different from the way that the older Petrarchan sonnet form implements the structure to address the theme or indeed object of love. Shakespeares supposition of love as expressed in the sonnets is essentially based upon reality, homo beings interacting or regarded as representative of love without the necessity to involve the idea of worship as is certainly the case with Petrarchs Laura. Although many of the sonnets are intercommunicate to an un sleep togethern and somewhat generically enigmatic female, referred to as the inexorable dame by critics, the sense of the sonnets being concerned with homophile love in all its aspects is always primary, as Shakespeare writes in Sonnet CXXXI grant I never saw a goddess goMy mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground(Shakespeare, William. 2003. Shakespeares Sonnets. ed. Katherine Dun undersurface J unmatchables. p.375)This is a thought that he completes by following the colon with a couplet summation that despite this, or by chance because of it, his love is as rare as any belied with sullen compare. It is clear that love for Shakespeare is as concerned with benignant beings as much, if not more, than the conception of love and the distant, silent, object of that love as divine. Thus, the idea that sentimentalist love has short(p) to do with love as it is actually experienced is another aspect of love with which the sonnets are concerned and which this dissertation will address.Indeed, one imperative which seeks to involve a less direct form of love is the concept of Platonic love, or love as an ideal, as expressed in Sonnet CXVI Let me not to the marriage of true minds/Admit impediments (Shakespeare, William. 2003. Shakespeares Sonnets. ed. Katherine Duncan Jones. p.343). It is primarily accepted that the first seventeen of the sonnets are address to a young man and in these Shakespeare turns more frequently to the idea that marriage should be the object of a mans livelihood. However, he then turns, in sonnets cardinal-CXXVI, to homoerotic expressions of love to a man, identified, simply because of the dedication on the first (possibly unauthorised) publication, by Thomas Thorpe, as Mr. W.H.The interpretation of the expression just now begetter is doubtful. Did Thorpe mean that Mr. W. H. was the fair spring chicken of the sonnets (though on this reading the dark lady also has a claim as a begetter, to some of the sonnets), or was he scarce the gentleman who gave Thorpe the msMr. William Harvey by chance, who in 1598 married the widowed mother of Lord Southampton? The manuscript can only have come from one in the inmost circle of those who knew Shakespeare and his noble friend. If Southampton was the friend, William Harvey may have been the only begetter. (Alexander Nisbet, 1935, p. 94)Like the Dark chick, the young man is not identified within the sonnets and the location of his individuality has similarly exercised scholars across the generations. However, although it is certainly true that misbegotten identification is of passing interestThe identity of the fair spring chicken matters much more to those who look at that the poems grew from in-person experience than to those who believe that they are poetic fictions, influenced more by sonneteering convention than by life. (Bate, 2008, pp. 41-2)Bates advert is well-taken since the actual identity of the object of love is indeed much less important to an appreciation of the sonnets than their importance as representative of aspects of loveSomehow the poems convince each referee that what he or she sees in them is what is really there. hardly somehow they then plume up behind you and convince you of something completely different. (Bate, 2008, p. 43)It might be argued, in particular, that precisely because of the lack of getledge concerning the individual to whom the sonnets are addressed, readers have make a g eneric connective with them across the generations which is cathartic in its anonymityHow do we lesser mortals know to perform our lesser miracles of life? once more we face the enigma of all creation, which Shakespeare himself has simply accepted and has nowhere essay to explain. What was there when there was nothing? And how does something more forever come from something less? Whether the creation be instantaneous, in six days, or in aeons of ages the miracle is no less. And in it we live, and move, and have our being. And perhaps, alas, have in us too little of the poet to see that there is any miracle at all. (Baldwin, 1950, p. 384)Thus, the individual biographic aspects of the sonnets, though of interest, can never be a primary informatory and this may, indeed, be beneficial, as we shall hope to see.Chapter One The Marriage of True Minds infinitesimal is kn avow about Shakespeares life and this has given rise to much meditation about his biographical backgroundIt is one of the ironies attendant on the yield of Shakespeares reputation that even the most diligent scholarship has been able to endanger very little of the background of the poets personal or public life. However, the want of detail has merely spurred his biographers to accessiond scholarly, inferential, and imaginative activity. (Marder, 1963, p. 156)What is certain, since it is documented through baptism of the children, is that he was married to Anne Hathaway, a fairly well connected Stratford girl, older than himself, when he was eighteen, and they had three children a daughter, Susanna, and twins, Hamnet and Judith. Despite this, or maybe because of it, he worn out(p) the vast studyity of his life away from home in capital of the United Kingdom where most of his writing took place.There has been a great deal written about how happy or otherwise the couple might have been, especially since he left Anne nothing in his will beamly his second beat bed. Many have read this as an ir ritate only perhaps a more appropriate reading is that the best bed was for guests and the second best the marriage bed therefore to go out this to his wife, far from being an insult, was a love token. Carol Ann Duffy writes of this in her sonnet Anne Hathaway The bed we loved in was a spinning world of forests, castles, torchlight, clifftops, seas where he would dive for pearls. (Duffy, The Worlds Wife, 2000, p. 30)This tender version of love would seem much more appropriate, especially since the first seventeen of the sonnets, known as the procreation sonnets, are largely concerned with the recommendation of marriage to a young man. If Shakespeare was so violently against marriage then it seems remotely that he would have recommended it. However, as always with the sonnets, this is not as straightforward as it seems with the directional to unify being somewhat complicated by other imperatives with which Shakespeare is clearly concerned, not least his affection for the Fair Yo uth.The early sonnets in the sequence should be considered as they pertain to the question of marriage itself, therefore, rather than as they consociate to Shakespeares lifeShakespeares Sonnets raise a number of problems. We do not know when they were written, to whom they are addressed, nor even if they are certainly autobiographical. (Knight, 1955, p. 3)With this in mind it is not only preferable however essential, therefore, to qualify any discussion on the possible relationship between the sonnet topics and Shakespeares life with the reminder that we know so little about the latter that any inferences must be regarded as tenuously speculative at best. Thus, the marriage question which relates to the first seventeen sonnets cannot be seen as directed in any major sense by the poets own lifeThe greatest sonnets, those which are neither wholly conventional nor wholly autobiographical, preserve this balance between imbroglio and legal separation in a way which is truly spectacula r. A personal experience may underlie each, entirely it is experience transmuted, as in the plays, into the correlative form of characters in action. To some degree these characters are the salient counterparts of actual people-the youth, the dark woman-though they are not the people themselves. Others be coarse, as personages, only to the microcosm of poetry Time, for example, one of the most powerful villains among Shakespeares dramatis personae and above all, Shakespeares own assorted masks and moods, fully realised and understood. (Mahood, 1988, p. 90)The idea that the sonnets are in any way biographical must, indeed, be questioned but it must also be remarked that the way the words are used within the sonnets might be referable to Shakespeares personal consciousnessThe record of the wordplay in the Sonnets varies according to whether Shakespeare is too remote or too near the experience behind the poem or whether he is at a satisfying dramatic surpass from it. When he is d etached, the wordplay is a consciously used, hard-worked rhetorical device. When his complexity of feeling upon the occasion of a sonnet is not fully realised by him, the wordplay often reveals an emotional undercurrent which was perhaps hidden from the poet himself. solely in the best sonnets the wordplay is neither involuntary nor wilful it is a skilfully handled means whereby Shakespeare makes explicit both his conflict of feelings and his resolution of the conflict. (Mahood, 1988, p. 90)Thus, when in Sonnet CXVI he writes of the marriage of true minds (Shakespeare, William, 2003, p.343) he is perhaps inviting us to infer a connective between what he writes and what he feels, an on the whole different kind of marriage, metaphorical rather than literal and certainly more of the mind than of the heart.As the sequence begins, the poet addresses the youth familiarly but in an intimately didactic tone, of the older to the younger, as here in Sonnet I From fairest creatures we commi t increase, That thereby cup of teas rose might never die, But as the riper should by time decease, His tender heir might relent his memory But thou contracted to thine own bright eyes, Feedst thy lights flare up with self-substantial fuel, Making a famine where abundance lies, Thy self thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel Thou that art now the worlds fresh or lay downnt, And only herald to the gaudy spring, Within thine own bud buriest thy mental object, And, tender churl, makst prodigality in niggarding Pity the world, or else this glutton be, To eat the worlds due, by the monstrous and thee. (Shakespeare, William, 2003, p.113)The importance of this sonnet in establishing the poets themes end-to-end the sequence must be stressed, as here we see Shakespeare writing of the brevity of beauty, the selfishness of the individual, the battle between desire and fulfilment, the beauty of the natural world and its comparative with human beauty (to which he will return in the well-kn own Sonnet eighteen and elsewhere) and the basic office of man to procreate or, as the sonnet has it, increase and thereby beautys rose might never die. All of these relate to the human condition and also perhaps to Shakespeares own concernsIn the case of a poet, I suggest it is chiefly through his images that he, to some extent unconsciously, gives himself away. He may be, and in Shakespeares case is, almost entirely objective in his dramatic characters and their views and opinions, yet, like the man who under stress of emotion will show no sign of it in eye or face, but will reveal it in some muscular tension, the poet unwittingly lays bare his own innermost likes and dislikes, observations and interests, associations of thought, attitudes of mind and beliefs, in and through the images, the verbal pictures he draws to illuminate something quite different in the speech and thought of his characters. (Spurgeon, 1935, p. 4)Thus, the fact that the boy is referred to in relation to fa irest creatures facilitates the poets directive that this places upon the individual a responsibility beauty is not given to die but to be carried on by the tender heir. The register is imperative and commanding, with the poet adopting the voice of one who has the potence to instruct by reason of superior age and wisdom, hence perhaps the juxtaposition of riper and decrease in the preceding line to reference to the tender heir and memory. The youth is instructed that he is, in common parlance, his own wipe up enemy, Thy self thy foe, since he does not see the waste of his beauty which lies in his refusal to share his gifts with posterity via procreation. This accusatory tone is extended to the self-abuse of withdrawal method in Within thine own bud buriest thy content, which also bears the pun of delight and substance, and the youth referred to as a glutton and tender churl, the latter implying an leniency in the chiding of the boy. This is, of course, the supreme image of the was te with which the poet is concerned since to make a famine where abundance lies is almost seen as a blasphemy, refusing, selfishly, to procreate and eat the worlds due by the selfish pursuit of personal stupidity contracted to thine own bright eyes, as with Narcissus, in love with his own reflection and failing to see the self-destruction that is inherent in this.In addition, by referring to the boy in toll of a rose, the poet introduces the classic Romantic emblem of love as well as re-emphasising the transience of the poets beauty. This idea of beauty and its connective with nature is again related in terms of a comparative with natures beauty and inveterate perishability in Sonnet XVIII Shall I compare thee to a summers day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate Rough winds do shake the pricy buds of May, And summers lease hath all too short a date onetime(prenominal) too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimmed, And every fair from fair someti me declines, By chance, or natures changing course untrimmed But thy ever-living summer shall not fade, Nor lose possession of that fair thou owst, Nor shall death brag thou wanderst in his shade, When in eternal lines to time thou growst, So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. (Shakespeare, William, 2003, p.147)The comparison of the transience of natures beauty with that of the youth to whom the poem is addressed is clear, yet the rhetoric of the opening seems to imply an equivocal nature to the connective of the extended metaphor that follows. The tentativeness of the image is also emphasised by this skeptical in the first line and it enhances both the intimacy of the register of address and the relationship of the poet with the wider readership. This latter is important because it is so much a concern in the poem, with the idea of immortality attached here to writing as it was previously attached to procreation. The common denominator here is the idea of creation itself and its connective with the eternal.This is perhaps one of Shakespeares more famous sonnets, if not the most famous, therefore it is allowance that in a dissertation concerned with the aspects of love which the sonnets present, attention should be paid to the aspect of the writing which pertains to the process of creation and its connective with the reader. It is enkindle to note, indeed, that the poet withdraws to stress the importance of the eternal lines which he is composing and how this overcomes the basic transience of life and beauty whether in nature or humanity. Indeed, the punctuation of this sonnet is indicative of its imperative since there is frequent usage of the colon throughout, implying a thought begun and completed in each quatrain, functioning almost as enjambment and enhancing the idea that the many aspects of beauty and life which this sonnet covers are embodied within one thought as evidenced in the single ext ended metaphor which informs the sonnet as a whole. The poets almost godlike assimilation of the power to grant immortality appears dangerously hubristic in pilfer and indeed encourages the inference that Shakespeare was aware of the strength of his poetic gifts and their ability to chatter a kind of immorality on the object of love, who by the end of the sonnet has become subject to the sonneteer rather than in command. As the poet is also using his gifts to describe the loved one via nature, the features of the numinous within nature become connected with this hubristic stance. Thus, natures changing course and Chance, which significantly begins a line, are to some extent negated, or at least qualified, by the poets art. Features of life which terrify, therefore, such as death cannot brag in the face of the eternal nature of ArtShakespeare prophetically felt the immortality and universality of his plays even though he seems to have made no great effort toward their saving in pr int. (Marder, 1963, p. 361)This might, this sonnet would seem to suggest, also be extended to the sonnets. Indeed, in daring to criticise the glories of nature, Shakespeare appears to place creative Art above it, since it, unlike all that is natural, survives, only, though, as long as it is appreciated, as the final couplet significantly testifies So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.In this way, Shakespeare demonstrates an ken of the fundamental importance of the connection between writer and reader, reinforced perhaps by his experience as an means and writer of drama. Hence, the voice of the actor may be perceived in the words of the sonneteer and universality as well as the eternal perceived in bothOn this planet the reputation of Shakespeare is secure. When life is discovered elsewhere in the human race and some interplanetary traveler brings to this new world the fruits of our terrestrial culture, who can imagine anythi ng but that among the first books carried to the curious strangers will be a Bible and the works of William Shakespeare. (Marder, 1963, p. 362)Thus, Shakespeare may be seen, via the sonnets and plays, to transcend what is perceived as immediate in aspects of love and engage with the eternal.Chapter Two I do believe her though I know she liesThe potent sexual content of the sonnets becomes a major directive following the romantic turning point of Sonnet XVIII. The sequence moves powerfully from restrained yet poetic discussion of aspects of love to explicit sexual references which are concerned more with proclivity than love and often deceit is linked to this and this duplicity is most often associated with the heterosexual sonnets.Importantly, the passion is not directed solely towards heterosexual love, sort of it involves an equal, if not stronger, reflection of homoerotic desire, with the Fair Youth and the Dark Lady equally powerful in the poets passion, indeed, often the two overlap producing an androgynous aspect to the passion which also appears in the playsThe first thing that startles the reader about the sonnets is the emotional virtuosity of the protagonist. The poems appear to have been composed over a longer period of years, and to cover a greater range of aflame experience, than any one of the plays. In recognizing the variety of moods and attitudes Shakespeare accumulates in the sonnets, we may choose either to admire his protean nature as an actual impassioned friend and lover, or to stress his dexterity in accumulating such an frightful range of amatory motifs from literary sources. Either his own nature was unco flexible and susceptible, or he deliberately chose to display the full mountain range of literary permutations of which emotional relationships are capable. Probably both views are true he dexterously coordinated first-hand experience with the accumulated resources of the sonnet tradition, from the devout and sentimental to th e cynical and outrageous. (Richmond, 1971, p. 19)This is particularly noticeable in Sonnet XX where the poet longs for the youth to be a woman and the homoerotic replaces the marital directive which appeared in the didactic tone of the first sonnets in the sequence A womans face with natures own hand painted, Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion A womans gentle heart, but not acquainted With shifting change, as is false womens fashion An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling, Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth A man in hue all hues in his controlling, Which steals mens eyes and womens souls amazeth. And for a woman wert thou first created coin bank Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting, And by addition me of thee thwarted, By adding one thing to my purpose nothing. But since she prickd thee out for womens pleasure, Mine be thy love and thy loves use their treasure.(Shakespeare, William, 2003, p.151)Shakespeare confronts without delay here the clear b elief that women are two-handed and deceitful and that the master mistress of his passion, though gifted with a womans gentle heart is not acquainted/With shifting change, as is false womens fashion. The eye, the traditional window of the soul, is more bright but less false. Thus, the poet suggests that the beautiful youth has all a womans best gifts but none of her faults, a state of perfection to be idealised in desire. Shakespeare develops this by writing directly of the sexual difference where the punning prickd is clearly a reference to the diffuseness of the penis for the poet. Nature here is the enemy, even the jealous sexual predator, having me of thee defeated thus frustrating the desires of the poet by changing what he perceives to be the original intention, to create a woman, in the addition of the male organ of procreation. The uncrystallized image appears to be the ideal with neither male nor female specifics to dour or defeat the perfection of the union.Whether thi s desire is linked to Shakespeares own desire is equivocal as are all inferences of autobiographical content, it is tempting but dangerous to make too may autobiographical assumptions. HoweverIn depicting this blend of adulation and contempt, and in all those sonnets where verbal ambiguity is thus used as a deliberate dramatic device, Shakespeare shows that superior insight into states of strangely mixed feelings which enabled him to bring to life a Coriolanus or an Enobarbus. Like Freud, he found the causes of quibbling by studying his own quibbles and the detachment which such an analysis implies imparts to the best of the Sonnets that objectivity we look for in the finest dramatic poetry. (Mahood, 1988, p. 110)Certainly, there is a Freudian homoerotic subliminal here but there is no evidence to suggest that this was an actual experience of the poet any more than we can say that he wrote Hamlet therefore he must have experienced being the Prince of Denmark. To do either is to p ush aside Shakespeares imaginative genius and his ability to transmute the fancy into the creative, with both forming then a reality which has little if any connection with fact. So, although Shakespeare may have had sexual liaisons with both sexes and been crossed in love, the genius is in producing what can be seen to be unrelated to what might possibly have occurred in fact into an emblem of a generic tendency in humanity to which most of us can relate If Shakespeares speaker fictionalized the young man, so too he fictionalizes himself (Berry, 2001, p.1).Having said that, Sonnet XX has been seen as go significant clues not only to the nature of Shakespeares own sexuality but also to the identity of the Fair Youth himself and certainly to the reality of the human image even in its placing, as Kathryn Duncan Jones has pointed out in her notes to her 2003 var. of the Sonnets (the edition used throughout this dissertation) The placement of this anatomical sonnet at 20 may allude to a traditional association of this invention with the human body, equipped with twenty digits (Duncan Jones, 2003, p. 150). The direct connection which Duncan Jones makes between general anatomy and imagination in this sonnet is interesting in that it breaches the gap between what might be seen to be metaphorical and what is actually a human figurative. Indeed, she goes on in her Introduction to expand on this Many more numerological finesses may be discerned. For instance, the embarrassingly anatomical sonnet 20 which probably draws on primitive associations of the figure with the human body, whose digits, fingers and toes, add up to twenty (Duncan Jones, 2003, p. 101).As to the identity of the youth to which clues are supposedly to be found in this sonnet, they largely attach to the usage of the word, or name it is suggested, of hue and hues (spelt Hew and Hews in the Quarto). This, it has been mooted, might relate to a specific individual, especially as critics have noted that the name appears in one form or another, even if only in disparate letters, throughout the sonnet. As with much of the investigation into a connective between Shakespeares life and his Art, the link is at best speculative and at worst spurious and in either case somewhat superfluousThe sonnets have an terrible capacity to elicit categorical statements from their interpreters. It is announced that the youth is Southampton, the youth is Pembroke, the youth is nobody, the dark lady is Mary Fitton, she is Aemilia Lanyer, she is nobody, the sonnets are based on experience, they are not based on experience, the love was not homosexual, the love was homosexual, the love was a dramatic fiction which ha