Stella, the only planet of my light,
Light of my life, and life of my desire,
Chief good, whereto my hope doth only aspire,
World of my wealth, and heaven of my delight:
Why dost thou spend the treasure of thy sprite,
With voice more fit to wed Amphion’s lyre,
Seeking to quench in me the noble fire
Fed by thy worth, and kindled by thy sight?
And all in vain, for while thy breath most sweet,
With choicest words, thy words with reasons rare,
Thy reasons firmly set on virtue’s feet,
Labour to kill in me this killing care:
Oh, think I then, what paradise of joy
It is, so fair a virtue to enjoy.
I suggest you click here to open the sonnet in a separate window, so that you can refer directly to it as you read on through the analysis.
Reading note: in line 3, “only aspire” needs to be elided to three syllables: “onl’aspire.”
Like Sonnet 66 (though not identical in form), this one mimics the structure of an English sonnet, building an argument in three quatrains and giving a snappy response to it in the final couplet, rather than having Sidney’s more customary evenly divided sestet.
The first quatrain functions only as a hyperbolic version of “Dear Stella,” and is a rather subtle auxesis (like the opening of Sonnet 1), starting out explicit (with repetitions of “light” and “life”) and turning implicit as “desire” turns into “good” and “world” and “wealth” step up to “heaven” and “delight.”
The second quatrain asks the rhetorical question that is the central message of the poem: why is she so determined to “quench” the very passion that her person ignites? Why does she use a voice “more fit” to be singing along with Amphion (the lyrist who could move stones with his music, and thus built Thebes) to instead preach cold reason? The “third quatrain” (in our faux-English form) extends this thought: her preaching efforts are “all in vain” because the more she gives voice to her virtue, the more convinced he is of her perfection, and the more he desires her!
“Enjoy” (the final word of the sonnet) is a word with an explicit sexual sense, so the speaker is coming close to the peculiar corruption of Angelo in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure: being aroused by the very purity that he would violate. A more generous interpretation might focus on the Platonic idea of being drawn to better ourselves by the force of beauty; but however generous we might want to be to our long-suffering speaker, we must still accept the ambiguity of that attraction. The “bottom line” of the poem is the paradox that Stella’s virtuous pleading has the very opposite of its intended effect.
Next time (weekend of February 20): Sonnet 69
Jonathan Smith is Professor of English at Hanover College, Hanover, Indiana.