Sonnet 145

1. Those lips that Love's own hand did make,

2. Breathed forth the sound that said I hate,

3. To me that languished for her sake;

4. But when she saw my woeful state,

5. Straight in her heart did mercy come,

6. Chiding that tongue that ever sweet,

7. Was used in giving gentle doom:

8. And taught it thus anew to greet:

9. I hate she alter'd with an end,

10. That follow'd it as gentle day,

11. Doth follow night, who like a fiend

12. From heaven to hell is flown away.

13. I hate, from hate away she threw,

14. And saved my life saying not you.

Hate for Him

Dedication: To Elizabeth

The poet offers the anguish it is to hear Elizabeth's divinely made lips utter hate (for Henry). How seeing his despair in this, the pity and mercy she took on him and rebuked herself. He alludes to the greater consequences of her now unspoken hate being "gentle doom" (of Henry). Then finishing with what the poet takes as a life saving solace, when she qualifies herself that the hate is not for him.

1st Quatrain: (1-4)

Lines 1 and 2 speaks of the incongruity of Elizabeth's lips (made by Love's hand) expressing hate. Far worse for the poet is that they expressed it for something he can't believe she meant it for. And indeed this thought brought him such anguish she could clearly see it in line 4. I can only imagine this very interlude happened in a heated personal appeal which Oxford no doubt made many times.

2nd Quatrain: (5-8)

Line 5 shows that Elizabeth still had a soft spot for the poet and probably from what we can see in future sonnets left some hope that her decision in regard to Henry was not final. At the very least I'm sure Oxford held out this hope. Any line 6 is the indication that she at least tempered this decision with the expression "giving gentle doom".

3rd Quatrain: (9-12)

Line 9 Elizabeth explains herself a bit and the poet expressed in his most fluid poetry.

couplet (13-14),

With the final result being that she told the poet the hate was not meant for him. Of course the life saving part was to imply that the poet would have had to take his own life had this not been the case.This doesn't speak well for an observing Catholic to have uttered this line.

It is not clear (to me) if Elizabeth actually expresses hate toward Henry (still a baby) or more this terrible position that she finds herself in, needing her virginity and her unwedded ness for both national pride and diplomatic bargaining power.


Commentary:

In this sonnet hate emerges for someone close to the poet but not the poet. Hate plays a large part in the sonnet series and it will come again in one form or another in several sonnets, specifically 89 and 10. Here we have a reference to an all important third party (child) influencing their relationship, with the hate expressed but not toward the poet. Which again goes toward the hate previously expressed in sonnet 149 and again toward a third party. It should not seem hard to connect it to that subject (the poet’s friend) on which he fawns and dotes and yet is viewed by the subject as a defect and which others abhor.

Again the arrow of time is revealed in seeing the poet’s initial trauma of being hurt, gradually diminishing but ever present and continuing the theme of these sonnets. In addition this sonnet provides important information for the whole of the story, particularly of Elizabeth’s empathy toward Oxford. As well as a possible indication of future sympathy developing toward his argument.

This sonnet has been referred to as the worst of the sonnets by virtue of the lines being shortened, i.e. in octosyllabics or eight syllable lines instead of ten-syllable lines. An opinion expressed by Andrew Gurr. Thus this poem is in iambic tetrameter as opposed to the more common iambic pentameter form of five “feet to a line” in other Shakespearian sonnets. I suspect that this shortening of the lines is actually meant to convey a symbolic cheating on the subject by denying Elizabeth a more complete poem as she cheats him in regard to Henry. I would also offer that a father/son relationship is a clear motivation for the poet’s interest in the relationship between the subject and the unspoken but clear third party of this poem. Especially when given the circumstances of the subject being mother and queen and the third party being a son and hypothetical prince.

And as for the concept of this poem’s quality, I would have to disagree for while it may not be poetically among the best it certainly provides more insight into the poet's feelings and is very revealing of this mystery. Andrew Gurr further suggests that though it is “located deep in the jumble of Dark Lady sonnets”…”that there is no evidence that it is a Dark Lady poem”. Dr. Gurr of course fails to make the relationship of the hate expressed to that in previous poem (previous here) of 149 somehow. And in addition Dr. Gurr fails to see any relationship to the previous sonnet asking the subject why she “spends” so much on herself. Worst of all Dr. Gurr makes a specious argument that this is Shakespeare’s first sonnet and attempts to suggest that ‘hate away’ in line 13 was meant a word-play on Hathaway. But the explanation contains no motivation for the hate. Though Dr. Gurr at least does speculate that these problems are evidence of the fact that this is an early sonnet which of course I must concur. The lesser quality however might be useful toward corroborating that this is an early sonnet.

Commentators have doubted both the authorship and or the place of this sonnet in the sequence. As I already mentioned this sonnet’s main subject of hate expressed for another is the same hate expressed in Sonnet 149 (line 5).