Shakespeare's Sonnets 1 and 2

Sonnet I

FROM fairest creatures we desire increase,

That thereby beauty's rose might never die,

But as the riper should by time decease,

His tender heir might bear his memory:

But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,

Feed'st thy light'st flame with self-substantial fuel,

Making a famine where abundance lies,

Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel.

Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament

And only herald to the gaudy spring,

Within thine own bud buriest thy content

And, tender churl, makest waste in niggarding.

Pity the world, or else this glutton be,

To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.


My Interpretation of sonnet 1.

Shakespeare is talking about procreation being a necessity in beautiful people (not necessarily in looks); so that when these people age/ die/ are no longer able to bear seed, their beauty might live on in their heirs. (Notice the usage of male terminology which suggests that the British in that era were a male dominated society). Then he refers to these same people and terms them vain/ too full of themselves, because they feed their desire by masturbation/ celibacy. By doing this, they become their own worst enemies, because although they might be beaus, by ensuring that they do not procreate, they are being unfair not only to themselves but to society as well. The sonnet urges these people to rethink their foolish decision, or else continue being selfish and take to their grave something which they owed to themselves as well as the world, but were too miserly to share.

Sonnet II

When forty winters shall beseige thy brow,

And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field,

Thy youth's proud livery, so gazed on now,

Will be a tatter'd weed, of small worth held:

Then being ask'd where all thy beauty lies,

Where all the treasure of thy lusty days,

To say, within thine own deep-sunken eyes,

Were an all-eating shame and thriftless praise.

How much more praise deserved thy beauty's use,

If thou couldst answer 'This fair child of mine

Shall sum my count and make my old excuse,'

Proving his beauty by succession thine!

This were to be new made when thou art old,

And see thy blood warm when thou feel'st it cold.

My Interpretation of Sonnet 2.

This is almost a continuation of the first sonnet as this one also talks about the need for procreation to carry on a family and self legacy.
When you are past the age of forty and age shows on you; when asked about where your great beauty is now, all you can do is feel ashamed, because you have nothing to show for it. If you would have instead had a child, then you could hold your head high and say my beauty lives on in my son. By doing this, when you are old and frail, you could still see your blood alive and young in your son and take pride in that.

A more indepth interpretation by me of Sonnets 1 and 2.

Shakespeare lived during the renaissance period and this was a time a large number of scholars, artists, politicians, authors and people who wielded immense power over the masses, started questioning the ways of the church (Roman). These people did not openly denounce their ways, instead they did it in ways that carried their messages where the church could not question or stop them. So, I feel that Sonnets 1 and 2 and some more I am sure were Shakespeare’s way of lashing out at the Roman Church because he was rebellious, a.k.a Wilde, Da Vinci, Voltaire, Michelangelo etc…

Through these sonnets he is talking about priests required to be celibate. Priests, who spread God’s word are known to be beautiful people, from the inside, not looks wise.

“As the Roman Catholic Church continued with new independence, it added even more remarkable doctrines that were not taken from the Bible. In 1079, Pope Gregory VII declared the shocking decree of celibacy for the priesthood.”

It was during this time that the seeds for the Church of England to be separated from the Roman Church were planted. These thoughts and more like them ultimately resulted in the Church of England forming a separate sect under King Arthur VIII, who came to be known as Protestants, in the 17th Century.
Protestant pastors can marry.

Others have speculated that during the years when nothing was known as to Shakespeare’s life, also known as Shakespeare’s dark years, he indulged in homosexuality. These sonnets may have been written as a plea to his male friend to marry and produce offspring just like he did. Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway and had a few offspring of his own. This is why, whether or not Shakespeare indulged in homosexuality or not was and still remains just that – a question, a doubt and mere speculation – there is no proof of this anywhere. You may choose to believe what you will.

My belief is that Shakespeare was addressing all three issues together. If you take the poem at face value, it is just a plea from one friend to another to marry and procreate. If you dwell deeper in history, then even the religious views make sense. And if you choose to believe that Shakespeare did indulge in homosexuality then the third viewpoint also holds merit.

There you go then, food for thought, eh?