The speaker cites how he made “sense” (9) of his friends actions. Shakespeare uses irony as well, citing that even though the speaker was hurt he still “advocate[d]” (10) for his friend. These actions plunged the poet into deeper conflict “[a]gainst” (11) himself. The speaker has a desire to “love” (12) and “hate” (12). This fuels the turmoil: the speaker wants to defend and hurt his friend. This stanza also transitions from the usage of biblical allusions to the technicalities of the law. Key phrases such as “lawful plea” (11) leads to the narrator to characterize himself as an “accessory” (13) or an accomplice (notice the diction here?) to the “sweet thief” (14) that betrayed him. The speaker struggles to make the distinction between prosecution and advocation of his beloved which is the direct causation of the aforementioned “civil war” (12). This contributes to the theme of the ‘inner
The speaker cites how he made “sense” (9) of his friends actions. Shakespeare uses irony as well, citing that even though the speaker was hurt he still “advocate[d]” (10) for his friend. These actions plunged the poet into deeper conflict “[a]gainst” (11) himself. The speaker has a desire to “love” (12) and “hate” (12). This fuels the turmoil: the speaker wants to defend and hurt his friend. This stanza also transitions from the usage of biblical allusions to the technicalities of the law. Key phrases such as “lawful plea” (11) leads to the narrator to characterize himself as an “accessory” (13) or an accomplice (notice the diction here?) to the “sweet thief” (14) that betrayed him. The speaker struggles to make the distinction between prosecution and advocation of his beloved which is the direct causation of the aforementioned “civil war” (12). This contributes to the theme of the ‘inner