Sonnet 125

1. Were 't aught to me I bore the canopy,

2. With my extern the outward honoring,

3. Or laid great bases for eternity,

4. Which prove more short than waste or ruining?

5. Have I not seen dwellers on form and favour

6. Lose all, and more by paying too much rent

7. For compound sweet; Forgoing simple savour,

8. Pitiful thrivers in their gazing spent.

9. No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,

10. And take thou my oblation, poor but free,

11. Which is not mix'd with seconds, knows no art,

12. But mutual render only me for thee.

13. Hence, thou suborn'd Informer, a true soul

14. When most impeach't, stands least in thy control.

My Duty Done

Dedication: To Elizabeth

Oxford explaining how he supported both her and his government using the metaphor of bearing the canopy performed his duties which he questions if it will have been for nothing as he alludes to Henry's recognition. Asking if admirers of Henry are wasting their gazes in line 8

1st Quatrain: (1-4)

Offering that it might be a question of whether it was his obligation but stating that never the less he performed his service. Cleverly using the metaphor of baring the canopy (which is frequently done in ceremony), however the canopy was a symbol of the state and this is almost certainly a metaphor for continuing her lineage. Line 3 is probably a reference to Henry in continuing the Tudor line. In line 4 he comments how things are to be prematurely ended and comments on the waste and ruining.

2nd Quatrain: (5-8)

Somewhat of a mystery, my guess a comment on those outwardly loyal whom Oxford has seen imprisoned or even executed. Asking if admirerers of Henry are wasting their gazes in line 8

3rd Quatrain: (9-12)

Here he contrasts his own inward loyalty in line 8. To make his offering in his own more Christian way in line 9.

couplet (13-14),

Reflecting the apparent attempt of control by Elizabeth's authority. I believe Oxford is expressing his willingness to suffer whatever sacrifice including his own life to provide for the eventuality of recognition.


Commentary:

This sonnet is frequently understood as a very autobiographical sonnet by Oxfordians, most because of the bearing of the canopy is much more in keeping with Oxford’s position in Elizabethan society.However this is actually I believe a prime example of the typical excessive literalism with which the sonnets have been interpreted by virtually everyone. And in actuality bearing the canopy is I believe a lesser status than that of Lord Great Chamberlain which Oxford was, and thus bearer of the sword of state.

But as metaphor the meaning is much deeper in my opinion and is no doubt what he intended. Thus the bearing of the canopy is a reference to his supporting the state by continuing Elizabeth’s lineage. And the language of "were 't aught to me". This is very likely because Elizabeth is denying him the privilege. And as metaphor it fits with the metaphor of laying foundations. Which also alludes to providing something to be built upon and he quickly contrasts it with the lack of care given.

Further the literal interpretation is not only a bit of a non sequitur, as this boast comes somewhat out of nowhere. And the usage of aught/ought conveys the question of whether it was his duty or obligation. Which makes it awkward and it suggests that the poet didn't actually physically carry the canopy but is almost certainly metaphor. Further it does not really work very well literally, as one person can not carry the canopy. Thus one might much better expect a phrase suggesting that the poet helped bear it and not that he "bore" it without help.

The point of this sonnet never the less, is to remind of his service and his part to further the continuance of the Kingdom. Another point of this sonnet is to make Elizabeth understand that she is not upholding her part of this bargain and her usage of force to control people is very much criticized and warned against. Thus this sonnet is in fact one of the most obvious ways in which the Stratford man’s story is completely removed from what is depicted here.

In one sense I might ask that the reader indulge me in a method the orthodoxy is guilty of. Asking that this sonnet be understood as to a woman as the continuation of the address contained in the previous sonnets. However, I do not have to soley rely on such an argument because the mention of the canopy bearing should be much better understood with Elizabeth as the subject and thus not merely some odd boast.


The oblation of line 10 I believe should clearly be understood as reference to Henry. But both as usage of the legal means of transfer of a property and playing on the liturgical offering of the greater oblation, the transubstantiated Body and Blood of Christ. And while the next line is somewhat mysterious it very possibly is a play on taking the Eucharist a second time (iterum), as someone in danger of death were seemingly urged to do as well as a play on time.


Vendler remarks that the poet “condemns eternity” but that is actually not what the poet is doing, he is condemning physical attempts to express eternity in monuments and the like. The poet is actually very much for the expression of eternity through both his and Elizabeth’s blood lines and in the lines of his verse. She also says that the couplet intimates that someone, an “informer’ has said that the speaker’s motives “are mercenary toward the young man”. My response is that the poet is the informer, because he is metaphorically like an informer in that he is being manipulated by the state. And the youth plays no actual part in this sonnet except as motivation for the sonnet. The couplet is an expression and warning of the potential unpredictability with which Oxford may act. One can make a very detailed argument and some have that this is the subtext of Hamlet. The notion of whether to act on the offenses committed against him. While Oxford does threaten to act the reality appears that he was largely kept waiting for his satisfaction. Though I can only speculate that he may have actually played some part in the Essex Rebellion.


Kerrigan questions whether the canopy of line 1 is is literal, metonymical, metaphorical or even allegorical. But fails to set that it is important symbolism as well as likely metaphorical.


Note: If this were literal likely Oxford would have mentioned his bearing the sword though possibly this would too uniquely identify himself. However I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he may at some point have actually helped to carry the canopy which of course is a literal method of supporting Elizabeth.