A Little Bit of Background
[home]
Sir Walter Ralegh’s poem, “The Lie,” speaks of the superficial meanings of life that we make for ourselves. They become so potent that we grow to believe the “lies” to be truths. There are genuinely kind people, who do kind acts without any thought to the positive consequences of their actions. The government honestly cares about its people and isn’t merely on a corrupt power trip. Ralegh criticizes every aspect of society in his poem, accusing the church, the court, potentates, the rich, schools, and friends of not seeing the truth, blinded by the stereotypes we create for ourselves.
Ralegh speaks to his Soul, the essence of each person which is independent of the physical body, for the Soul is the only aspect of us that knows the truth. Since the Soul knows the truth, it must spread the truth making people aware of the false life they are living. And when people respond to this knowledge negatively, telling the Soul it knows not of what it’s speaking, the Soul must tell them that they are liars.
“The Lie” was published in 1608, but Ralegh, born in 1552 (died in 1618), wrote in the sixteenth-century style. His rhyming scheme is very simple and sing-songy, much different from the more intricate sonnet rhythm that was rising at the time. It follows an ababcc pattern. For example, the first stanza’s pattern is as such: guest/arrant/best/warrant/die/lie. Guest rhymes with best, arrant with warrant, and finally the last two lines of the six line stanza rhyme together with die and lie.
The first stanza serves as a type of introduction, telling the reader what general meaning to expect from the poem and sets the poem’s negative tone and theme. In the second line, the word “thankless” already suggests that the Soul’s arrant (rather errand, meaning “message, verbal communication to be repeated to a third party, or business on which one is sent, the object of a journey, a purpose, intention” OED) is not appreciated. The last line of the first stanza is quite negative, explaining to the Soul that it needs to “give the lie” to the entire world for the author, Ralegh, must die (as must any living man). The term give the lie means to tell someone he is a liar.
The second stanza begins the long list of criticisms to the different groups of liars in the world. The court “glows/And shines like rotten wood” (lines 7-8). The court is just as distinguished and brilliant as rotten wood. Obviously, Ralegh is being sarcastic here, suggesting that the court, although maintaining a brilliant skin, is nothing but a disgusting, decomposing, deceiving body on the inside. The church is no better, for it is a hypocrite, telling its members what good acts are, how a moral man should act, but yet does not enact its own advice. Hence, both the court and the church are liars.
In the third stanza, Ralegh attacks the potentates, or rulers such as princes or royals, who are gifted with independent power. The potentates act only insofar as reacting is concerned, never taking it upon themselves to initiate action. Ralegh then criticizes the subjects, suggesting that they do not love their rulers unless the rulers are continuously giving. But by the same token, the only concern of the potentates is that of the attainment of power. They are “not strong but by affection” (line 16). The word affection refers to passion or lust, meaning that the potentates lust for power, not seriously caring for their people, just insofar as the people’s appreciation of the ruler will further the ruler’s empowerment. Ralegh then criticizes the rich, or “men of high condition,” stating that their only goal (purpose) is the desire again to achieve greater influence and notoriety (ambition) (line 19). The following stanza again criticizes the rich, or those that “brave it most,” referring to those who dress extravagantly (line 23). Ralegh explains that despite the amount of clothing one may buy, the amount of money one spends, the yearning for more will never be quenched. Those that “brave it most” continuously crave more, looking for nothing but commendation, through superficial means.
The next stanza speaks of feelings and their insincerity. Zeal (enthusiastic action or “passionate eagerness in favour of a person or cause”) lacks devotion (or “enthusiastic attachment or loyalty”) (OED). Ralegh seems to suggest that these enthusiastic actions are not genuine feelings for another but more selfish, self-concerned feelings. Love is the same. It is not true, but is a mere insatiable appetite. “Flesh it is but dust” (line 32). This line is by far the most morbid. It suggests that the only point of our life, our coming to fleshy being, is death. The next stanza again attempts to destroy our assumed values. Age, referring either to a certain time period or referring to our personal growth, does not take advantage of what the world offers. It “daily wasteth” (line 35). Favour falters, possibly meaning that people place favour upon others through misjudgments and faulty reasoning.
Wit bickers (wrangles) in controversy over sensitive and insecure (tickle) instances (points) of over-refinement (niceness). What may seem a substantial, important discussion is merely a superfluous concern with an inconsequential and foolish issue. Wisdom involves herself in petty quarrels, embarrassing herself, making her affected knowledge and insight obvious, showing her lack true understanding and depth.
And so the poem continues, criticizing each area of our society and value system as being superficial and a set of lies. Medicine (physic) is too sure of itself. Despite our blind beliefs that there is only happiness and good fortune in the world, we are merely ignorant. In spite of friendship there is also unkindness. Despite a justice system, the laws are merely superficial rules, helping the rich and influential become more rich and influential, and denying the unfortunate a chance. There is no true faith, no genuine pity for others, and true virtue is least appreciated of any other positive attributes.
Ralegh believes that the world is composed of fakes and insincere beliefs and believes it to be the Soul's duty to enlighten humanity, despite their presumed response of disbelief and hate. The poem connects very closely with the theme of Plato's The Republic. All their lives, a group of prisoners are chained and unable to look anywhere but straight ahead of them. All they are able to see therefore is a series of shadows. At a certain point, one prisoner is set free and is able to move around. He realizes the source of the shadow to be a set of objects maneuvered in certain ways behind a fire, hence casting certain shadows. The prisoner is then let out of the cave, and after the painful adjustment to the bright sunshine, he soon becomes aware of his new surroundings, aware of the actual truths of life, rather than the lies that he had been accustomed to. When he returns to the cave, however, with this new knowledge, his fellow prisoner don't believe him and ostracize him for speaking blasphemy. Hence, the prisoner in Plato's The Republic (which was written around 360 BC) plays the same role as the Soul plays in Ralegh's poem. Whether or not Ralegh was influenced by Plato's work, I'm not yet sure of. However, it is very possible, for there are very similar themes of enlightenment in both works.