The ministry of higher and secondary special education of the republic of uzbekistan termiz state university the faculty of foreign philology the department

CONCLUSION
One of the reasons why Shakespeare’s poetry is being commonly referred to as such that represents a particularly high literary value, is that the overwhelming majority of his poetic pieces contains a number of in-depth insights into what accounts for the essence of different emotional states that people experience throughout their lives. The validity of this suggestion can be well illustrated, in regards to the Sonnet 116, in which the poet exposes readers to his highly idealistic view on the significance of love. After all, there can be only a few doubts that, along with being aesthetically refined, this poem appears thoroughly consistent with what happened to be people’s unconscious anxieties, in respect to the notion in question. This, of course, contributes to the mentioned sonnet rather substantially, in the sense of making it discursively plausible. Let us explore the legitimacy of this statement at length. Probably the first thing that comes in sight of just about anyone who read Sonnet 116, is that Shakespeare tends to objectify love, as something upon which the flow of time and what happened to be the affiliated circumstances have no effect, whatsoever: Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds (2-3). Despite the sheer simplicity of this suggestion, it is indeed utterly powerful, because it correlates well with people’s deep-seated desire to think in absolutes – especially when dealing with the emotionally charged notions, such as love. There is even more to it – the quoted suggestion appears rhetorically sound. That is, the very manner in which is being structured, presupposes that it would be rather impossible for readers to disagree with the suggestion’s predicate. This, of course, points out to the fact that Shakespeare was not only aware of what the rhetorical device of ‘appeal to ethos’ is, but also that he knew perfectly well how it could be used in the work of poetry. Partially, this explains Shakespeare’s intention not to be questioning the beneficence of the love-relationship between two individuals – especially if they happened to be psychologically compatible: Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments (1-2). Apparently, the poet knew perfectly well that love should be appreciated for what it is, with no considerations given to the fact that it seldom proves long-lasting. The reading of Sonnet 116 also leaves only a few doubts that, although rather intuitively, Shakespeare was knowledgeable of the ways, in which one’s psyche actually operates – something that can be proven, in regards to the lines: O no! it (love) is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken (5-6). The rationale behind this suggestion is quite apparent – the quoted lines imply that Shakespeare understood the importance of the deployment of highly metaphorical language, within the context of how one goes about encouraging readers to adopt his point of view on the actual significance of a particular abstract category (in this case, love). After having been exposed to the above-quoted metaphorical account of love, readers will indeed be much more likely to agree with the poet that the notion in question implies ‘indestructibleness’. The reason for this is that it is namely one’s ‘visualized’ images of abstract ideas, which his or her memory preserves the best. What it more – this suggestion was meant to capitalize on what happened to the socially suppressed sexual anxieties in readers – hence, the clearly defined phallic undertones of the images it strives to invoke. Apparently, Shakespeare never doubted the assumption that the notion of love can be best discussed in relation to what causes men and women to enter into the sexual relationship with each other – for him, this was something self-evident. What gives Shakespeare an additional credit, in this respect, is that in Sonnet 116, he succeeded in combining the formally incompatible ‘materialist’ and ‘metaphysical’ outlooks on love.