Sonnet 125 - Symbolism, Character Identity, and Tone

Symbolism, Character Identity, and Tone

Sonnet 125 carries a great deal of symbolic language, but the purpose and structure of a sonnet do not allow nor require detailed explanation of the meaning of this language. Due to the ambiguous nature of Shakespeare’s words, this sonnet can be understood in a variety of ways. A number of scholars have examined Sonnet 125 and come away with different conclusions about its message. The number of characters identified by scholars ranges between two and four depending on how the language throughout this particular sonnet and the entire sonnet cycle is interpreted. As the number of characters fluctuates, the meanings assigned to each action within the sonnet take on new meaning.

According to Thomas M. Greene, Sonnet 125 contrasts the true values of grand external gestures in opposition to simple acts of inward devotion as a means of attaining the affections of the Friend. The First Quatrain sets out the argument that the Speaker could perform grand external gestures such as the bearing of a ceremonial canopy or the building of some great monument, but that these actions cannot outlast ruination. The idea being that these actions are fleeting and are therefore of little value to either the Speaker or the Friend.

Greene recognizes the “great bases” of line 3 to be a manor house which carry over into his understanding of the Second Quatrain. According to Greene, this “manor house is faintly sustained by “ruining”, “dwellers”, “rent”, and the possible allusion to compound and simple interest”. This economic terminology transforms the actions of the suitors into a sort of currency that is spent too quickly. In line 7, the compound sweet is seen by Greene as an artificial confection or overwrought style of poetry in great use by the other suitors who are themselves poets. It is a reference to Sonnet 76 in “which the poet reproached himself for omitting it from his own verse”. The symbolism behind dwellers and rent is meant to show that a large number of people are offering grand gestures of affection with nothing to show for it in the end. There is no returned investment when you rent a property, because the owner receives and retains all of the expense you put into it. Greene puts a great deal of meaning to the closing line of the Second Quatrain. According to Greene, the word “spent” means bankrupted, exhausted, and failed while also referring to being “drained of semen”. He sums this up by adding, “Unsuccessful entrepreneurs, with only the groundworks built of their mansion of love, the failure of their misguided, formalist generosity is symbolized by the suitors’ symbolic distance from their prize, observable but not touchable”. The suitors are “pittifull thrivors” who have expended so much to win affection only to find themselves wanting.

In the Third Quatrain, Greene recognizes the shift from the overt actions of the other suitors toward the inverted and humble actions of the Speaker. The Speaker wishes to be seen as dutiful and devout by the Friend. To do so, the Third Quatrain employs language that evokes thoughts of a religious servant who makes sacrifice. According to Greene, “In this secularized sacrament, the dutiful poet freely makes an offering intended to manifest the inwardness and simplicity of his own devotion, knowing, or thinking that he knows, that his oblation will win him the unmediated, inner reciprocity which is his goal”. Greene adds that the “unformulated implication of the work as a whole seems to be that expense is never truly recuperated”. Though the Speaker is seeking a relationship of reciprocity through means not employed by the other suitors, he still uses the art of poetry to make his case for the affection of the Friend. Greene sees this as the wedge between the Speaker and the object of his affection. He says, “Language is condemned to be compound; poetry is art; it shapes and forms and distorts; it introduces inequalities, like the inequality between an offering and an exchange, or the inequality between a secular offering and the sacramental body of Christ”. Thus, the Speaker has created a distance between himself and the Friend by creating these sonnets.

In the Couplet, Greene determines that the “informer” is not someone who slanders the Speaker, but that the voice within himself is the enemy. By giving his actions form through poetry, the Speaker has joined up with the other failed suitors in paying rent for which he gets no return.

Ronald Levao agrees with Thomas M. Greene’s understanding that the Speaker replaces “superficial pomp, external loyalty, and possibly the “art” of poetry itself” with “pure simplicity and single-minded, quasi-religious devotion” in order to receive “mutual render”. He does disagree with Greene’s summation of the informer from line 13. Levao sees the informer as some unnamed person who has broken the mood of Sonnet 125 by bringing forth accusations against the Speaker. This changes the meaning of the sonnet for Levao. He sees it as “not a defiance of Time or court gossip nor even a reproach to the young man for spurning the proffered mutuality, but the poet’s final attempt to revive his commitment”.

Heather Ousby points out that the identity of the “subbornd Informer” has proved especially contentious for critics. She points to several interpretations of the informer which include the Friend, some sort of spy, and “an abstract force such as jealousy”. In her interpretation of the Sonnet, Ousby settles on the idea that the informer represents the Friend. She bases this thought on the various meanings of the word “suborn” during this time period. Rather than spying, informing could also be seen as inspiring and thus it would refer to the inspiration for the sonnet. Likewise, the term suborn meant corruption in loyalty which the Speaker accuses the Friend of in other sonnets. Ousby is making a case for eliminating the informer as some third party, much like Greene. The difference is that Ousby uses the subtraction of this would-be character to shift the tone of the sonnet. She agrees that the first two quatrains concern how the “dwellers on form and favor are destroyed by that humiliating process” of giving unreciprocated affection. She sees the third quatrain as a plea to the Friend or as a directive to both of them. The couplet, however, becomes a means of stating the Speaker’s independence from the Friend due to his “poor but free” oblations which mean a lot but cost so little. For Ousby, the Speaker seems to be separating himself from a disloyal patron who demeans his work.

C.R.B. Combellack openly challenges Ousby’s interpretation of the Informer’s identity. He feels that since, “Shakespeare’s objections to false accusations against him are the very subject matter of the poem, an Informer who lays information against another is particularly apropos in the poem”. Combellack subscribes to the idea that there are four characters represented in Sonnet 125: the Speaker, the Friend, the Informer, and the Suborner. He believes that the actions of the first quatrain were accusations leveled against Shakespeare as the Speaker. For Combellack, Shakespeare becomes the canopy-bearer as a means of advancement toward fame and fortune. In the second quatrain, Shakespeare shows how those who participate in these grand gestures often pay too much and lose a great deal only to have their gestures be seen as empty. Combellack sees the third quatrain as the offer of genuine love to the Friend, “uncomplicated by any secondary thought of self-interest, in return for love”. The couplet then changes tone once more as Combellack views it. He sees it as Shakespeare defending himself against gossip by pointing out how “outrageously untrue gossip” could not possibly be believed by his Friend. There is more hope in Combellack’s interpretation of Sonnet 125, because he sees the altruism of the love offered by Shakespeare and how vehemently he denies the rumors against him.