The Phoenix and the Turtle by William Shakespeare

The Phoenix and the Turtle

I drew The Phoenix and the Turtle, a poem by William Shakespeare, for my Deal Me In Challenge, and after reading it, I’m so confused.  Fortunately, I pulled up an article on it which said it is one of the more confusing poems in English literature, so I feel a little better.  But only a little.  Let’s see what I can discover about it ……

First, it’s helpful to know that when Shakespeare mentions “turtle” he means a turtledove, of which, of course, there is a world of difference.  Perhaps now it will make some sense.

The Phoenix and the Turtle

Let the bird of loudest lay
On the sole Arabian tree
Herald sad and trumpet be,
To whose sound chaste wings obey.


This is supposed to be a build-up to a funeral procession.  And other birds are responding to the “herald”?  But only good birds are invited?


But thou shrieking harbinger,
Foul precurrer of the fiend,
Augur of the fever’s end,
To this troop come thou not near.


Here there are certain birds who aren’t welcome.  Is he speaking of one bird in particular here?  Or a group of birds with certain vile character traits, who must stay away?


From this session interdict
Every fowl of tyrant wing,
Save the eagle, feather’d king;
Keep the obsequy so strict.


So no tyrannical birds may attend except for the eagle who is respected as a king and therefore allowed to be tyrannical???


Let the priest in surplice white,
That defunctive music can,
Be the death-divining swan,
Lest the requiem lack his right.


Now the swan is called to be the priest.  An addition of colour … white for purity.


And thou treble-dated crow,
That thy sable gender mak’st
With the breath thou giv’st and tak’st,
‘Mongst our mourners shalt thou go.


Who is the crow who gives and takes?  Again, another colour analogy in contrast with that above: he would be black or “sable” which would link with death but he seems to give both life and death?  How can he unless he represents God?


Here the anthem doth commence:
Love and constancy is dead;
Phoenix and the Turtle fled
In a mutual flame from hence.


And the funeral begins for the Phoenix and the Turtledove and it is proclaimed that love and constancy is dead, it appears forever.


So they lov’d, as love in twain
Had the essence but in one;
Two distincts, division none:
Number there in love was slain.


Hearts remote, yet not asunder;
Distance and no space was seen
‘Twixt this Turtle and his queen:
But in them it were a wonder.


So between them love did shine
That the Turtle saw his right
Flaming in the Phoenix’ sight:
Either was the other’s mine.


Property was thus appalled
That the self was not the same;
Single nature’s double name
Neither two nor one was called.


Reason, in itself confounded,
Saw division grow together,
To themselves yet either neither,
Simple were so well compounded;


That it cried, “How true a twain
Seemeth this concordant one!
Love has reason, reason none,
If what parts can so remain.”


Though in their physical bodies they could not actually be one, now that they are dead, their souls can unite


Whereupon it made this threne
To the Phoenix and the Dove,
Co-supremes and stars of love,
As chorus to their tragic scene:


And so the funeral is concluded.




Beauty, truth, and rarity,
Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclos’d, in cinders lie.


Truth and beauty are now dead.


Death is now the Phoenix’ nest,
And the Turtle’s loyal breast
To eternity doth rest,


Leaving no posterity:
‘Twas not their infirmity,
It was married chastity.


Because their love was a spiritual love, they leave no children.


Truth may seem but cannot be;
Beauty brag but ’tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be.


Truth and beauty now are only echos of the true thing.


To this urn let those repair
That are either true or fair;
For these dead birds sigh a prayer.


Lament these birds (and the loss of those virtues).


Woman holding turtledove

Mlle Leotine Desavary Holding A Turtledove (1872) Camille Corot
~ source Wikiart

Good grief, I feel like a two-year old.  Did you notice all the questions in my analysis?  I just couldn’t figure this out; I had a much easier time with his poem A Lover’s Complaint.  And, in spite of the somewhat unfamiliar language, Shakespeare doesn’t usually confuse me; he usually amazes me.  But I haven’t read many of his poems so perhaps I’m going to have a different experience.  I’m going to be terrified of getting another one.


There is all sorts of speculation around this poem, often that the Phoenix and his Turtledove refer to Queen Elizabeth I and her “favourite”, Robert Devereax, the Second Earl of Essex.  Does it denote the death of their love only?  The death of her favouritism?  Yet many concur that the poem is allegorical and the resemblance to specific people was only known by Shakespeare and perhaps a small circle of his trusted acquaintances.  Which makes the reading of it, although interesting, also somewhat frustrating.

Well, on with my challenge!  I’ve drawn another card and my next read will be: Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson!  Phew!  I love Emerson and my read of his essay, Friendship, was one of my favourites!

16 thoughts on “The Phoenix and the Turtle by William Shakespeare

  1. Thank you for making me aware of this poem, Cleo. I usually think of myself as a huge Shakespeare fan, but when reading this I realised that I’m not that familiar with his poems as I want to be. I don’t think you’re the only one who struggle with this poem. I could pick out a few couplets that I enjoyed, but I struggled to understand the whole of the poem. Which is one of the reasons I really want to pick up the poem for myself. Did you read the poem online or in a book?

    • I read it as both, in book form and online. I like reading a poem at least three times before attempting to analysis it. It didn’t help with this one! If you can ever make head or tail of it, I would love to hear your thoughts. I do think it refers to people and well never really know who. Thanks for stopping by!

      • Can I ask what book edition you used? And I agree that poems needs to be read several times. I also see a lot of people talk about how language change, but the reality is that the social context also changes. This means that there are things we will never understand about Shakespeare’s work because we don’t know the social context of his writing.

        • I like my RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company) editions and I’ve tried a few of them. But for this one I used an Oxford edition. Yes, you are so right …. in many classics there are things we can’t understand because we haven’t lived in those times. Even with studying those times, we are still not completely versed in everything. But I think it appeals to human nature …. the thirst to discover. At least I hope so, although I do know some people who read classics and attempt to judge them by modern standards which seems rather pointless to me.

          • That’s been one of my irritations regarding ant-Stratfordian theory. Is there a lot we don’t know about Shakespeare? Yes. But, we also know more about Shakespeare than we do anyone of his peers by a mile. I get why you would compare some classics to modern standards in relation to what would make it difficult to read it, but I don’t see any other point in doing that. Why do you think they compare classics to modern standards?

          • Yes, I agree. And when I read old commentaries on the plays (like Oliphant, one of my favourites, and Hazlitt, Johnson, etc.) they can be immensely different in what they draw from the plays and how they see them than modern commentaries.

            Why do they choose to see the classics through modern eyes? Ha, ha! That’s a loaded question but I’ll be honest. I think we are inherently selfish beings and we want to understand things in a way that can benefit US, and it’s easy to twist things to our point of view instead of taking the time to try to understand someone else. So in a way, it’s a lazy way to read literature instead of trying to get to know not only the author but their times, and then trying to get our head around something that is foreign to us. I also think people can be driven by money and if they can come up with some new “theory” perhaps they will gain notoriety or attention or their book will sell more. But that’s just my opinion. 😉

          • I don’t know how it is in the US, but you might have a point. I’ve always assumed that people were egocentrical rather than selfish. Egocentrical is that you view everything from your own standpoint, and if someone thinks something different from yourself, you end up thinking they are bad because what they are doing/thinking something that is bas in your experience.

          • Well, I’m in Canada but it’s probably somewhat similar to the U.S.

            Interesting thoughts. I would say that being egocentric is a process and selfishness is the outcome, so the two are closely linked. The more you practice one, the more you ARE the other. I think it’s simply in our nature to be selfish (except for a few angels here and there) and it’s our will that makes us think of others first ….. a will probably born from an intrinsic recognition of our nature but perhaps more our upbringing. Interesting thoughts all around, huh? 😉

          • I remember being facinated about how children develop when it comes to thir egosentric/empathy development. If you have two children around two years old who are playing together, and child A gets hurt, child B will very often get the their own mother to comfort child A. The theory for this is that child B is still at the egocentrical stage that they don’t understand that just because they want their mother if they are hurt, that doesn’t mean child A wants child B’s mother when they are hurt. When the child turns about 4 years old, child B will get child A’s mother if child A is hurt. The theory here is that now they understand that just like child B wants their own mother if hurt, so would child A prefere their own mother if hurt. But, I can agree that not understanding that other people need something different from you in certain aspects is probably something humans struggle with their whole life.

          • I wonder too, if by 4 years old they’ve had the socialization to realize that they can trust people outside their immediate family? In any case, it’s all very interesting.

          • (Sorry for the latte reply,) Based on my education children can be socialized to trust people outside their immediate family, if they get the time to know them. Very few will trust strangers.

  2. Pingback: What is your favourite Shakespeare edition? – Lesser-known gems

  3. “Arabian” to me means it takes place in the desert and that agrees with Phoenix, the bird that rises from its own ashes.. but it can only be allegorical because doves don’t live in the desert, so it must apply either literarily or politically to the England of Shakespear’s time. the “tree” in the first stanza is important i think, not only because that’s where birds live, but as an indication of status… i don’t know the details of whatever it is he’s referring to, but i can’t help but think that it has to do with politics more than literature, and so possibly the mention of Devereaux does have something to do with it… fascinating stuff!

    • Professor Mudpuddle, thank you so much. You know, I just became frustrated with the beginning and never really did a close reading. I’m going to have to revisit it when that frustration has died away.

      I agree that it has more to do with politics. Queen Elizabeth’s time must have been fascinating. Now if only I could time travel …

      Again, thanks for the much appreciated help. I love how through these blogs, we can learn from each other!

  4. i tried sending another comment but got locked out: just a short observation that the desert symbology may indeed represent a Jesus or Christian motif; but it’s pretty well hidden if that was the intent which it most likely wasn’t…

    • Ooo, thanks for this, Mudpuddle. I agree; Shakespeare doesn’t seem to be big on using Christian symbolism in his works. It’s often a stretch. Then again, perhaps that was his purpose. Again, appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks for visiting. I'd love to hear from you and have you join in the discussion!