Sonnet 114

1. Or whether doth my mind, being crown'd with you,

2. Drink up the monarch's plague, this flattery?

3. Or whether shall I say mine eye saith true,

4. And that your love taught it this Alchemy?

5. To make of monsters, and things indigest.,

6. Such cherubins as your sweet self resemble,

7. Creating every bad a perfect best

8. As fast as objects to his beams assemble:

9. Oh tis the first, tis flattery in my seeing,

10. And my great mind most kingly drinks it up,

11. Mine eye well knows what with his gust is greeing,

12. And to his palate doth prepare the cup.

13. If it be poison'd, 'tis the lesser sin,

14. That mine eye loves it and doth first begin.

Prepare the Cup

Dedication: To Elizabeth

Oxford telling Elizabeth that he may be suffering from the "monarch's plague", flattery since in his mind he is "crown'd" with her. Telling her as well that his vision may also have learned her "alchemy" from her love which has taught him how to convert Henry into a "monster and things indigest". Telling of this young child and "cherubin" which resembles her and how she makes his young behavior ill as fast as this child learns new things. Finally telling Elizabeth that even though this boy's chalice may be metaphorically poisoned Oxford receives great pride from this young son.

1st Quatrain: (1-4)

Line 1 is a reference to Oxford's believing that he should be royalty as well due to what he believes was a marriage between them. The alchemy in line 4 is the conversion of Henry from good thing to bad as we'll see.

2nd Quatrain: (5-8)

Line 5 refers to her making Henry a monster. While line 6 reflects on how Oxford sees the young boy who he believes resembles his mother. Stating how she views Henry's young behavior as poor …

Line 8 speaks of the young child's curiosity while playing on the son/sun homonym.

3rd Quatrain: (9-12)

Line 12 speaks of the cup as a reference to the ceremony of a king?

couplet (13-14),

Lastly Oxford says it matters not if this would be a mistake it is one that I want to to see made.


Commentary:

This sonnet contains the usage of the metaphor of being “crowned” with the subject, and the "most kingly” reference are obvious clues which belie the true nature of the subject. An unusual allusion and means of communicating with someone not of the monarchy.


In addition the third person “whose palate doth prepare the cup”, and the one who “as fast as as objects to his beams assemble” are yet more references to Henry. These lines and this sonnet should be much better understood within the context and to the subject I’ve stated. Without these this sonnet is just an enigma like so many others and just another reason to pretend the sonnets really don’t have meaning.


The connotation of "beams" in line 8 as not old enough yet to communicate verbally and the cherubs of line 6 point to Henry being still at an early age. Expressing himself through his looks and behavior.

The “his” usages of this sonnet (as in many others) performs two functions. It cleverly is made to be something mentioned in the poem, the eye in this case. However it really represents Henry, as he really provides the more logical subject. A real entity which actually gives the poem meaning, opposed to a hypothetical cherubim made monster for whom at some future time the poet desires very much to see anointed. After all when the poet actually refers to his eye, he refers to it as it.

This sonnet likely follows 113 as it forms one of the pairs which was placed in its proper sequence and possibly is meant of as a reminder of the reversal of the initials in the dedication even when the sonnets are read in proper order. In addition the discussion of both monsters and cherubim is a continuation of the story and the connectedness.

Vendler sees the sonnet as a general question of whether “moral sight has been deceived by visual sight?” Vendler’s insight completely misses that the true underlying subject of this poem, the son he discusses, is not a “rude creation” transformed into one’s beloved. But the opposite, a “cherubim” resembling his subject is transformed into a monster because the creature is somehow not easily assimilated (indigest). And that the love for the subject has tried to teach his own mind this alchemy.


Note:

I would suggest the Alchemy played an important role in the politics of this scenario. As I think that John Dee and the transmutation witnessed and recorded in his diary was actually an allusion to discussions surrounding the politics of this subject. And the Edward Garland was Oxford.