Compare and contrast To His Coy Mistress and Sonnet 130

“To His Coy Mistress” by Andrew Marvell and “Sonnet 130” by William Shakespeare, are both renowned
poems that have as a main theme love. Moreover, the two authors use this poems to admire their
own beloved, the mistress for Marvell and the dark lady for Shakespeare. These two compositions have
lots of differences, both in terms of structure, content and reason.

Firstly, in regards of the structure, it is easy to notice that they are entirely different one from the
other:
“To His Coy Mistress” is made out of three stanzas, that are lines 1-20, lines 21-32 and lines 33-46; in
contrast with “Sonnet 130”, which consists of three quatrains and a couplet written in iambic
pentameter. Furthermore, not only the structure is not equivalent but also the rhyme scheme: the first
one is written in couplets (AABB) whereas the second one follows the ABAB CDCD EFEF GG rhyme
scheme.

Despite this, they have some literary devices in common. Both of them, for example, use metaphors,
similes, consonances, hyperboles, enjambments and also utilize the iambic pentameter. In “To His Coy
Mistress” there are two metaphors: the first is used in the fourth line where Marvell writes “To walk,
and pass our long love’s day” in which he compares the life span of his and his mistress to one day. The
second is used in the eleventh line where he claims that “My vegetable love should grow” and with
that, he compares his love with slow growth of vegetables. Moreover, in this there is also one simile
used in this poem, that can be found in the line thirty-three and thirty-four where the artist points out
that “… the youthful hue Sits on thy skin like morning dew” the poet compares woman’s youthful skin
to morning dew.
In contrast with Marvell’s poem, Shakespeare sonnet has numerous similes, like the opening lines of
the poem such as “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun
Coral is far more red than her lips’ red” and metaphors such as the one that can be found in line four:
“If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head”.

Secondly, in regards of content, there are elements in common while there are elements that can be
found only in one of the two. Both of them talk about a mysterious woman, whose information are
unknown to the readers: in Shakespeare case can be seen an apparent hideous woman, because of
how he describes her, unlike in Marvell’s case where can be seen a cold but beautiful woman that does
not respond to his romantic advances.
Another element that these two poems have in common is the admiration that the writer has towards
his mistress. Marvell, for instance in lines 13-18 where he states that: “An hundred years should go to
praise Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze; Two hundred to adore each breast, But thirty thousand to
the rest; An age at least to every part, And the last age should show your heart.”, it can be seen that he
deeply loves her and wishes to spend the rest of his life praising and appreciating his mistress.
Shakespeare, instead, uses the three quatrains to apparently insult her beauty comparing it to nature’s
charm.
However, in Marvell’s poem there is another main theme other than love for a mysterious woman, and
that is mortality of men. To him, the mistress should not say no to him as the approaching death will
take all the pleasures of their lives. Therefore, they should seize the present and enjoy life to the
fullest.

Lastly, in regards of reason, the two poems are utterly the opposite: On one hand, Shakespeare uses
his sonnet to satirize the concept of ideal beauty during the Elizabethan era and to indicate that his
mistress is the ideal object of beauty and to demonstrate that she is more worthy of his love than the
one of other poets who make false comparisons. On the other hand Marvell exploits the concept of
“carpe diem” to urge his lady to respond to his advances and insists that by loving each other deeply
they will both make the most of the short time they have to live.

In conclusion, both of these poems have some elements in common and some that are not, moreover
the two of them are utterly different in regards of reason and structure.