SONNETS 142-153
Only the first commentary on each page is currently online
Sonnet 142
Love is my sin, and thy dear virtue hate,
Hate of my sin, grounded on sinful loving,
O but with mine, compare thou thine own state,
And thou shalt find it merits not reproving,
Or if it do, not from those lips of thine,
That have profaned their scarlet ornaments,
And sealed false bonds of love as oft as mine,
Robbed others� beds revenues of their rents.
Be it lawful I love thee as thou lov�st those,
Whom thine eyes woo as mine importune thee,
Root pity in thy heart that when it grows,
Thy pity may deserve to pitied be.
If thou do�st seek to have what thou do�st hide,
By self example mayst thou be denied.
In sonnet 142, the Poet calls his �love�, �my sin� and calls the Mistress� �hate�,
�thy dear virtue� (142.1) He inverts the idealised meaning of �sin� and �virtue�,
because the accepted use is contrary to the logic of beauty and truth in
Nature. Contradictions arise when a word is associated with over-idealised
dogmas. Sonnets 142, 144 and 145 examine how words such as love/hate,
saint/devil, and good/evil are used contrary to natural logic.
Sonnet 145, which brings to a pitch sonnet 142�s focus on �love� and
�hate�, indirectly identifies the source of Shakespeare�s natural logic by
punning on Anne Hathaway�s name as �hate away�. Young Shakespeare�s
relation to the more mature Hathaway was the defining experience of his
life. She made him aware of the nature of love and the source of truth and
beauty. Once Shakespeare accepted the priority of the female over the male,
he could reconcile his feminine and masculine personae and remove his
psychological dependency on male-based ideals.
The Poet says �love is my sin� (142.1) because, when he loves the Mistress
naturally (Shakespeare and Hathaway were pregnant before they were
married), traditional dogma says he �sins�. The Mistress� �dear virtue� is called
�hate� to preempt the logical consequence of excessive virtue, which is
uncontrollable hate. (Shakespeare witnessed such hate in the bloodletting
between the Christian sects of his day.) The Mistress �grounds� or bases her
�hate� of the Poet�s �sin� in an acceptance of �sinful loving� (142.2). She rejects
love based on idealised self-regard. In the Master Mistress sonnets (1 to 126),
the Poet countered selfish male-based ideals with the greater realism and
logical integrity of female-based love.
The Poet asks the Mistress to �compare� her �own state� (142.3) with his
to �find� that his state �merits not reproving� (142.4). �Or if it do�, then not
from �those lips of thine� that have �profaned their scarlet ornaments, and
sealed false bonds of love as oft as mine� (142.6-7). If the Poet�s masculine
side can be guilty of excessive idealism, then the Mistress can be guilty of
robbing �others� beds revenues of their rents� (142.8). It is as �lawful� for Poet
to �importune� (142.10) the Mistress, as it is for her to �woo� others with her
�eyes�. If she �roots pity� in her �heart� then, when it �grows�, her �pity� may
also �deserve� pity from others (142.12).
In the couplet, if the Mistress �seeks� pity but �hides� her pity from the
Poet, then �by self-example� she may be �denied� pity. The mature Poet is as
free to question the Mistress� deeds, as she is to question his. The Poet derives
his capacity for �love� and �virtue� from the Mistress, and she derives her
understanding of beauty and truth directly from Nature.
Back to Top
Roger Peters Copyright © 2001
Introduction
1-9
10-21
22-33
34-45
46-57
58-69
70-81
82-93
94-105
106-117
118-129
130-141
142-153
154
Emendations
|
