Poem Analysis - Sonnet 35 No More Be Grieved At That Which Thou Hast Done

A Conflict of Love and Justification

Shakespeare's Sonnet 35 is a complex exploration of love, forgiveness, and self-deception. The poem presents a speaker wrestling with a loved one's transgression, caught between feelings of love and the recognition of wrong. The initial tone is one of attempted acceptance and justification, but it gradually reveals a deeper internal conflict and a sense of being manipulated. The overall feeling is one of bittersweet resignation as the speaker ultimately acknowledges their complicity in the loved one's actions.

Universal Flaws and Excuses

One of the primary themes of the poem is the universal presence of flaws, both in nature and in human beings. The opening quatrain establishes this idea through vivid imagery: "Roses have thorns, and silver fountains mud, / Clouds and eclipses stain both moon and sun, / And loathsome canker lives in sweetest bud." These images suggest that imperfections are inherent even in the most beautiful and seemingly perfect things. This concept is then applied to human behavior as the speaker acknowledges, "All men make faults."

Love's Blind Justification

The theme of love's ability to blind the speaker to the loved one's faults is also explored. He admits to "Authorizing thy trespass with compare, / Myself corrupting, salving thy amiss, / Excusing thy sins more than thy sins are." The speaker is actively trying to minimize the transgression by comparing it to the natural imperfections of the world. This over-justification hints at a deeper unease and suggests that the speaker knows, on some level, that their excuses are excessive. He is not merely forgiving but actively working to diminish the wrongfulness of the act, essentially "corrupting" himself in the process.

Internal Civil War

A crucial theme is the internal conflict between love and reason. This tension is most powerfully expressed in the lines, "For to thy sensual fault I bring in sense / Thy adverse party is thy advocate / And ‘gainst my self a lawful plea commence. / Such civil war is in my love and hate." The speaker describes this conflict as a "civil war," highlighting the intense struggle within himself. Reason (or "sense") should be condemning the "sensual fault," but instead, it acts as an advocate for the loved one, arguing against the speaker's own sense of justice. This internal battle leaves the speaker feeling helpless and manipulated.

The "Sweet Thief" and Complicity

The image of the "sweet thief" is a recurring symbol representing the loved one. This oxymoronic phrase encapsulates the speaker's conflicted feelings. The "sweet" aspect speaks to the love and attraction that the speaker feels, while "thief" acknowledges the betrayal and the sense of being robbed. The poem concludes with the speaker's declaration that "I an accessary needs must be / To that sweet thief which sourly robs from me." This final statement suggests that the speaker has accepted their role as an accomplice in the loved one's actions, perhaps due to a need for love or a fear of being alone. The ending leaves the reader wondering whether this is a genuine act of forgiveness or a self-inflicted form of emotional captivity.

A Paradox of Love and Loss

In conclusion, Sonnet 35 is a poignant exploration of the complexities of love and forgiveness. It examines how love can blind us to the faults of others and lead us to rationalize their actions, even at the expense of our own integrity. The poem's power lies in its honest portrayal of the internal conflict between love, reason, and self-deception, leaving us with a lingering sense of the speaker's paradoxical position: both victim and accomplice to the "sweet thief" who "sourly robs" him.