William Shakespeare's sonnet 130 is a rejection of the Petrarchan rhetoric of the blazon, popularized by the Italian poet Petrarch in his Canzoniere, in which Petrarch idealizes the beauty of his love subject Laura through an anatomical analysis of her body. By comparing the parts of the woman's body with the most beautiful images of nature, Petrarca idealizes her unparalleled beauty and her dignity to be loved. In this sonnet, Shakespeare turns the traditional Petrarchan conceit on its head and paints a picture of a woman who possesses none of the beautiful qualities celebrated in the coat of arms. Rather than describing a fair-haired blonde as an unattainable love object who must be pursued in a courtly relationship, as in the style of the coat of arms, Shakespeare's woman is an earthly, attainable "dark lady" whose appearance is totally incompatible with the standards beauty conventions. In writing this sonnet, Shakespeare does not seek to denigrate the “dark lady” by showing her physical imperfection, but rather to portray the unrealism of the coats of arms and their exaggerated standards of beauty that can never be met by any mortal creature. In Sonnet 130, Shakespeare celebrates the earthly imperfection of mortals while rejecting the flawless but unrealistic perfection praised in the coats of arms. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Sonnet 130 imitates the blazon style through Shakespeare's anatomical analysis of the female body. Rather than continue on this trail of the blazon, however, Shakespeare rejects the conceit of the blazon by arguing that his mistress possesses none of the qualities celebrated in the blazons. By dissecting the female body in the style of the blazon while rejecting the rhetoric of the blazon, the poet informs the audience that the poem is anti-blazon. Shakespeare begins the sonnet with a sharp rejection of a famous blazon analogy, in which female eyes are compared to the brightness of the sun. Shakespeare's statement in the first line that "my mistress's eyes are not like the sun" (Shakespeare 112) clearly indicates his firmness in breaking with the established rhetoric of the blazon. Shakespeare then goes on to say that “the coral is much redder than the red of her lips” (112), thus rejecting the blazon analogy that compares the red of the woman's lips to the natural color of coral. In the coats of arms the perfection of the lady is such that her physical features can figuratively bear comparison with the most beautiful natural images. Shakespeare shows his lady's physical imperfection through her inability to hold her own against images of nature. Shakespeare shows that nature possesses qualities far finer than those found in earthly mortals. Mortals are characterized by their earthly imperfection, which cannot hold a candle to the perfection found in nature. Shakespeare announces that “if the snow be white, why then are her breasts grey” (112), reversing the emblazoned rhetoric that compares female skin to the dazzling whiteness of snow. Shakespeare describes his lady's skin color as that of a yellowish tan, which is therefore considered a repulsive skin tone associated with common workers. By contrasting the whiteness of the snow with the yellowish skin of his lady, Shakespeare once again overturns the conventional conceit of the coat of arms. Since the poet has the privilege of feasting his eyes on his lady's breasts, the audience may conclude that their relationship is sexual. The sexual relationship in this sonnet poses a firm rejection of the Petrarchan coat of arms, known for celebrating courtly love notconsummated in which the lady is an elusive and unattainable object to be worshiped but not possessed (Murfin 82). The inhuman perfection of Petrarchan Laura no longer makes her appear as a mortal capable of reciprocating love (Schoenfeldt 78). She was elevated to the rank of immortal goddesses who can only be worshiped at a distance, but never obtained carnally. The ladies of the coat of arms are unattainable because their exaggerated perfection has elevated them to the rank of divinity, beyond the realm of mortals. The physical imperfection of Shakespeare's lover makes her appear earthly, accessible and, consequently, attainable. In contrast to the semi-divine creatures of the blazons, Shakespeare's lover has the human capacity to enter into a consummate relationship, as suggested by the poet's intimate description of her breasts and his later description of the scent of her breath, both of which are manifestations of the physical intimacy of lovers. Announcing that "if the hair be threads, black threads grow upon his head" (Shakespeare 112), Shakespeare depicts a "dark lady" whose appearance is completely out of type by conventional standards of beauty. supported in the coats of arms. He compares her hair of “threads” to the “threads of beaten gold” of the woman with the coat of arms (booth 454). This dark-haired lady couldn't be more different from the idealized blazons who are always pure blonde. The marked differences between the "dark lady" and the pure blonde clearly demonstrate the poet's determination to reverse the consolidated blazoned rhetoric. Shakespeare then announces that he sees no “damask rose” (Shakespeare 112) on his lady's cheeks. He reverses the analogy of the coat of arms which compares the natural bloom of the lady's cheeks to the color of roses, in order to demonstrate that his lover does not possess such delicacy in her features. Shakespeare announces that "in some perfume there is more pleasure" (112) than the natural perfume "my mistress stinks" (112), demonstrating that the scent of his mistress's breath is not pleasant at all. Shakespeare states that music, an invention of human ingenuity, produces "a far more pleasant sound" (112) than his lady's human voice. By announcing the superiority of perfume and music, two artificial inventions, over the human qualities of his lady, Shakespeare causes the audience to wonder whether he is backtracking and adhering to the rhetoric of praising the superiority of artificial materials over the natural qualities of human beings. Yet the next line brings the poem firmly back to its anti-blazon track. Shakespeare declares that he “never saw a goddess go; My mistress, when she walks, treads the ground” (112). This line is a direct contrast to Petrarch's description that Laura's path is “not that of a mortal thing” (Schoenfeldt 78), which elevates her to the realm of divinity. Unlike Petrarch's divine goddess, Shakespeare's lady is indisputably earthly, not gliding through the air but literally “treading the earth” (Shakespeare 112). Claiming that he "never saw a goddess go" (112), Shakespeare shows the absurdity of ascribing divine qualities to mortal things. This matter-of-fact attitude reflects the poet's inclination to celebrate the imperfect mortals of the real world, and not the perfect but nonexistent divine beings idealized in the coats of arms. By far, Shakespeare paints a rather unpleasant picture of his lady through the inversion of many emblazoned presumptions. While the coat of arms glorifies a woman's beauty, Shakespeare's anti-coat of arms sonnet pursues the opposite goal, that of exposing a woman's physical imperfections while denying her comparison with natural beauty. In the couplet Shakespeare dramatically reverses this unfavorable impression of his lady by announcing that his love is rare "as all, 1977. 112.