1. In loving thee thou know'st I am forsworn,
2. But thou art twice forsworn to me love swearing,
3. In act thy bed-vow broke and new faith torn,
4. In vowing new hate after new love bearing:
5. But why of two oaths' breach do I accuse thee,
6. When I break twenty: I am perjured most,
7. For all my vows are oaths but to misuse thee:
8. And all my honest faith in thee is lost.
9. For I have sworn deep oaths of thy deep kindness:
10. Oaths of thy love, thy truth, thy constancy,
11. And, to enlighten thee gave eyes to blindness,
12. Or made them swear against the thing they see.
13. For I have sworn thee fair: more perjured eye,
14. To swear against the truth so foul a lie.
Dishonesty
Dedication: To Elizabeth
The substance of the story begins. Henry's birth is hidden, the essence of the "foul lie". The poet complains of the broken oaths and those around dutifully swearing against the his young child, one that they see and pretend not to. He angrily talks of the vows he makes not to misuse her and his lost faith in her. Finally, offering Elizabeth an explanation the perjury which she commits by concealing Henry.
1st Quatrain: (1-4)
Likely expressing his tacit or even forced renunciation of Henry’s birth and identity by virtue of his allegiance and love to Elizabeth. However pointing out to Elizabeth that she is twice guilty of disavowal of the truth in renouncing her commitment and vows to Oxford along with an unspoken issue (Henry). And this makes her twice guilty of a crime. Then explaining to her that she is breaking the (bed) vows they made to each other and expressing hate after “new love bearing”. The "new love bearing" is likely a reference to Elizabeth's pregnancy and/or birth.
2nd Quatrain: (5-8)
Reiterating the double nature of her guilt and asking rhetorically why the two truths she has abandoned should matter while Oxford in contrast speaks of all the oaths he now breaks. To which he explains to her are those oaths made in anger to avenge her crime against him. But finishing with the declaration of his lost trust in her.
3rd Quatrain: (9-12)
Again reflecting on the broken vows and oaths that Elizabeth has dismissed. Possibly the three elements of love, truth, and constancy are to reflect Elizabeth, himself, and Henry. Swearing against the thing they see is a reference to Elizabeth’s renunciation of Henry as her child.
couplet (13-14),
The couplet finishes with a final reflection on the lying eyes which deny Henry's existence.
Commentary:
This sonnet is the start of the main plot of the story, the argument to Elizabeth. The conflict within this sonnet will be the essential theme. The primary revelation of this sonnet is the lie to which Oxford is so adverse, Elizabeth’s concealment of his son's existence. This is what Oxford protests. Traditional orthodox readings of the sonnets completely fail to address the “foul lie” which appears at the end of this poem. Where I would in fact argue that this is the primary undercurrent among the whole of these sonnets.
Particular attention should be paid as well to this sonnet as a beginning of the story and establishing the chronology correctly. The making and breaking of vows and the initiation of the lie are the much better understood as the beginning of the relationship and the story. Notice for instance, no mention of the age of the protagonists which we will see in other parts of the sequence as aging becomes much more of a factor especially and in the end of the sonnet sequence when they each come much closer to death. Elizabeth lived quite a long time, to the age of 69, while Oxford died a year after her. Dying at the age of 55 and likely the toll this story took on him and his loss of the will to live once his quest had been denied were to blame. Though one is welcome to come to their own conclusion and make a judgement in this regard.
A key for understanding this sonnet I offer is the “perjured eye” of line 13, which is not only the second mention of the lie previously pointed out. And again is a strong undercurrent of the beginning of the sequence. This also begins the usage of the important metaphor of the poet’s own eyes experiencing what they knows is both a lie and a deception on the part of the subject. While line 12 also indicates his subservience and forced denial.
I also offer that there are both no contradictions or anachronisms within the sonnets themselves with regard to this explication. And that it is orthodox readings that are making the errors in inferring relationships and persons addressed. This should become apparent and should in itself seem striking evidence of the true nature of this interpretation, particularly as the sonnets progress.
What is the orthodox interpretation of this sonnet? For one there is no single definitive or consistent interpretation. And as allude to there is a large faction of scholars who presume that that there is no biographical connection at all to the poet. A strange and unnatural contention and clearly unsubstantiated contention in my view. But chief among the notions is that this is the beginning of the so called “Dark Lady” sonnets. Likely because this sonnet is traditionally the end of the sequence, it seems to fade in importance and perhaps seems to be more an expression of thoughts not clearly tied to the rest of the sequence. In fact I do not think most casual readers of the sonnets are even familiar with this section. John Kerrigan expresses that this section of the sonnets (127-152) are “fragmentary” in contrast to 1-126, which we are told “unfold sequentially”. Moreover what they all seem to have in common is speculation.
One example the word act, is often thought to be a reference to the sexual act and the broken vows are not between the two subjects in the poem but to their respective spouses. And odd and unnatural interpretation and one for which I think would only be natural to expect internal evidence contained in the poems. None of which is of course available. I offer instead act as the more obvious reference to the subject’s unstated action which was the subject of the broken vows between the poet and subject. This breaking of vows between the subject and the poet is another important early part of the story told by these sonnets. Oxford seems to have effectively thought of himself as married to Elizabeth.
Helen Vendler contrastingly sees “the sequence of the dark mistress brought to an end”. And also observes that the chronology is scrambled with the mixing of both present and past tenses. I hope to have cleared up this seeming ambiguity with the explanation provided. In addition where the orthodox reading is ambiguous at best I have tried to show that there is actually little ambiguity in who these sonnets were written to and what their subject matter is.
Perhaps in general in this aspect of ascribing the addressee, I have not succeeded completely. Some of the sonnets are somewhat ambiguous and the nature of them is not terribly revealing. These tend to be sonnets that are generally just flattery to the subject and it is not sometimes clear to me who the subject is. Perhaps in those cases it was meant to be both and to subtly show the similarity of the subjects, thus themselves becoming a part and method of the argument.
KDJ talks of “sexual and artistic betrayal” and “blunt allusions to double adultery”.
Note:
Again I solicit the views of others. So you must contact me directly. And I should perhaps mention that while my reading and this site are now almost a decade old, little work has been done in that interim. Mostly I was expecting a considerably larger response as well as the accompanying corrections that would ensue. Neither have resulted. And this site was constructed from notes I made in rather itinerant basis. Also I am not able to allow commenting. Only editors are able to comment on Google sites.