Sonnet 124
<FONT >
Yf my deare loue were but the childe of state,
It might for fortunes bastard be unfathered,
As subject to times loue, or times hate,
Weeds among weeds, or flowers with flowers gatherd,
No it was buylded far from accident,
It suffers not in smilinge pomp, nor falls
Vnder the blow of thralled discontent,
Whereto th'inuiting time our fashion calls:
It feares not policy that Heriticke,
Which workes on leases of short numbred howers,
But all alone stands hugely pollitick,
That it nor growes with heat, nor drownes with showers,
To this I witnes call the foles of time,
Which die for goodnes, who have liu'd for crime.
</FONT f></pre>
I have decided to do something a little strange here. I have created two explanations of this sonnet (actually they say the same thing). I am dissatisfied with both of them but each works from a slightly different angle, together adding more information.
First version
Stanza 1)
The first stanza says that if Shakespeare's love for Southampton was really just a response to Southampton's patronage and it ceases when that state of patronage ends, then it can rightly be claimed that "love" never existed. (In the flower of Southampton's partronage Shakespeare's love flowered but now tossed out of the garden and among the weeds that love becomes a weed [hate]---Shakespeare denies this is the case. His love is unchanging, not dependent on the flower of patronage.)
Stanza 2)
builded far from accident---In philosophy an "accident" was something dependent on something else for its existence. To be built "far" from accident meant to come into existence in a different manner than an accident comes into existence--in this case Shakespeares love did not come into existence because of Southampton's patronage (if so it would then be an "accident" of that patronage and would disappear when the patronage disappeared).
It suffers not in smiling pomp, nor falls under the blow of thralled discontent---Shakespeare's love would not change if he were suddenly to become famous and wealthy nor would it change if he were forced to return to being an actor and hack writer for the theater.
inviting time our fashion calls---(inviting=corrupting)the present event, the loss of Southampton's partronage is "corrupting" Shakespeare, taking him away from being a "poet", the highest literary calling, and returning him to the theater to make his living by crowd pleasing.
Stanza 3)
Heriticke=(L)an ever changing thing
policy=expediant behavior
pollitick=publicly unchanging
The third stanza begins the slice and dice of Southampton. It is, of course, Southampton's change in "policy" that has caused Shakespeare to lose his expected patronage. Southampton did not keep up his half of the patron-client relationship. Southampton is guilty of "poor lordship" but nevertheless Shakespeare still "loves" Southampton. It is Southampton's behavior that is "ignoble". Shakespeare's behavior is "noble". Who is the better man?
Couplet)
foles=folles, coins (see OED under "follis")
foles of time---coins currently in circulation
goodnes=goodness---in this sense, high gold or silver content
Which die for goodnes, who have liv'd for crime---Debasing the currency (the crime of issuing coins with a lower gold or silver content) causes the "good" coins to be melted down or sent abroad(disappearing from circulation) and only the "debased" coins survive. (As Thomas Gresham wrote to Queen Elizabeth--"Bad coins drive out good coins").
The "foles of time" (the coins currently in circulation) are witnessing to the larger proposition of the above stanzas---that "BAD MEN DRIVE OUT GOOD MEN". Southampton is driving out Shakespeare. To understand this metaphor completely one must know that it was Southampton's grandfather, the first Earl, who taught Henry VIII how to debase the currency (besides looting the monesteries). Also the grant of earlship was revealed after Henry's death, Southampton's grandfather suddenly announcing the deathbed papers King Henry had supposedly signed and sealed (These papers were probably forged). Shakespeare strikes not only at Southampton's character but at his lienage, his legitimacy as an Earl---while proclaiming his love for Southampton, Shakespeare cuts him to pieces.
Second version
Only two poems come after this one in the Southampton sonnets. This poem has "background", established in those other sonnets. In explaining this poem it is neccessary for me to fill in some of that background saying things that are not said "on the surface" of this poem. The poem says---
If my love for you Southampton were "accidental", depending upon the "state" of your love for me, then, since you have renounced me as your poet, my love for you should alter---but that is not the case. In other poems I have told you that I feel like a parent towards you, and a father cannot unfather his love even if his son renounces him. My love for you came into existence before your "love" for me "flowered" and you became my patron, and though now I stand in the "weeds" of your distain my love for you will not alter into "hate". Whatever your feelings towards me I will always love you.
My love came into existence differently than does an "accident" (philosophically it would be God inspired or in this case enspired by the muse). It existed before your patronage and is not dependent upon it. My love would be constant were I suddenly to become rich and famous (and not need your patronage) and will remain constant though it now seems (having lost your patronage) that I shall have to return to the artistically "inviting", corrupting life of the theater, "thralled" to writing popular plays to pay my bills instead of following the highest calling of a pure poet. (Actually Shakespeare knew his true calling was in the theater.)
I know that your patronagte came about because you wanted your name in the public eye, as someone who generously supported the arts. You did it to project a "face", an image, but now your "policy" is changing (patrons were notoriously fickle). Publicly you abandon me, but my love has not changed, cannot change. Publicly I will not speak badly of you.
Let me be frank, like a good father I have tried to shape your character for the better and this you have resented and felt embarrassed by. Some of my sonnets have not been flattering and we have quarreled about my writing. To fill your head with baseless praise instead of also trying to make you improve on your faults would make me a hypocrite, a poor "father" and obviously someone who did not truly love you. That is the truth of my love, that I wish you to be a better person--but because of that you have dismissed me from your service.
To this I witnes call the foles of time,
Which die for goodnes, who have lived for crime.
Like the coins currently in circulation, only counterfiets survive in your service. Men of good character, like myself, are like coins of "goodnes", they are destroyed. Now only base men surround you who criminally flatter you and undermine your character.
[This message has been edited by ewrgall (edited May 23, 2002).]
|
Linear Mode
