Astrophil and Stella 3

3. In sonnets 23-27, Astrophil yet again struggles with his wits. They see the "dull pensivenesse" in his "long setled eyes," they recognize the "fumes of melancholy" and the "idle paines, and missing ayme, do guess." However, Astrophil is still confident in his love. His devotion to Stella is unwavering: "...all [his] thoughts hath neither stop nor start, / But only Stella's eyes and Stella's hart." Astrophil also recognizes his own flaws again, this time even more self-depricatingly. He acknowledges that "Wealth breeding want, more blist, more wretched grow." However, he asserts that he is victim to such terrible character flaws, particularly when later in the poem he admits that "Yet pride I thinke doth not my soule possesse, / Which lookes too oft in his unflattring glasse: / But one worse fault, Ambition, I confesse, / That makes me oft my best friends overpasse." Personally, I think that Astrophil does not mean this to tear himself down; rather, he is trying to show that he can see things clearly. He admits that his reason is clouded by love, but he is still able to discern things such as character flaws. If taken in a romantic light, this could be meant to show that he is capable of seeing flaws of Stella, but that she possesses none. Astrophil also speaks of a misalignment between understanding what love is and truly feeling love. "And knowing, love, and loving, lay apart / As sacred things..." can be used to demonstrate this idea. Just because one knows what love is does not mean that one has felt true love. Likewise, just because one has felt love does not mean he or she understands it. Because of this tendency to naivety, "...that rich foole, who by blind Fortune's lot / The richest gemme of Love and life enjoyes, / And can with foule abuse such beauties blot." Astrophil comes across as bitter here, angry that those in possession of love are so capable of destroying it. A question also arose in my mind while reading this passage: does "rich foole" refer to Lord Rich, who married Penelope Devereux? If the sonnets are truly autobiographical, this certainly may be the case. Astrophil also defends Stella's virtue, saying that the "wisest scholler" once said that "Vertue, if it once met with our eyes, / Strange flames of Love it in our soules would raise," and he claims that "It is most true, for since I her did see, / Vertue's great beautie in that face I prove, / And find th'effect, for I do burne in love."


4. At this point, Stella's majestic unearthly goodness has yet to depreciate. She is still held in the ultimate regard by Astrophil. These five sonnets once again contain his worship and outlandish cries of love for the woman. Sonnet 23 has Astrophil pining over the disagreement between his wits and his heart, only to side with his heart once again. Sonnet 24 is Astrophil's cry of unjustness, lamenting the abuse so many fools inflict upon their love and the sometimes non-parallel ideas of knowing love and experiencing love. In sonnet 25, Astrophil speaks of the scholar who suggested that when one meets a virtuous woman, he or she erupts into a burning, frenzied love, an incident that Astrophil claims to know much about. He asserts that he has undergone this occurrence in meeting Stella, once again holding her on an extremely lofty pedestal. Sonnet 26 was the most confusing to me, but I think that it was talking about astrology and how Astrophil views cynics as fools. He appears to hold much regard for the heavens and astrology in general. Although I don't see exactly how this fits in with the rest of the sonnets, I think it could have to do with the idea of Stella being "heavenly" and also with astrology and fate. Shakespeare's time, also Sidney's time, dealt heavily with the idea of fate, so this could tie in. Sonnet 27 is where Astrophil admits his flaws, particularly his ambition. In doing so, as I previously mentioned, I believe he is trying to show that he still has reason and logic. He can still see flaws, albeit none in Stella.


5. I am still unable to determine whether Sidney meant Astrophil and Stella to be sarcastic or taken seriously. The two ideas seem to be branching off from each other as the poems continue, yet I cannot decide which path I will take. If he means everything quite literally, meant to demonstrate the perils of love and loss, these five sonnets are once again quite sentimental and sweet. Astrophil is pining for his unrequited love. He defends her, he praises her, and he even becomes angry at the unlucky fortune he has had in not being allowed to love her freely, while plenty of fools love and take advantage of their love every day. However, if he means it sarcastically, it is only becoming more humorous. Astrophil is a bit over-the-top for me, so I can see quite clearly how he could be interpreted as an idiot, for lack of better term. He claims to be burning in love, but to me it sounds more like lust. He pines and blames people who take advantage of love, while really he could be trying to move on. His every thought is of "Stella's eyes and Stella's hart," which in itself is ridiculous. Obviously this is hyperbole, or he is a very sick man. I also fail to believe that Stella has absolutely no flaws; why can he not admit them? He admits his own quite freely, so I would think that it would not be such a stretch to admit that she does not return his love, or that she is at times unkind, or maybe even that she can be selfish or naive or impatient.


6. Once again, SIdney utilizes Petrarchan Sonnet structure throughout his sonnets. He still uses what I would consider perfect rhyme, although I still hold that in today's language and pronunciation it would be slant rhyme at best. The capitalizing and italicizing continues, although its meaning still escapes me. I've noticed that the selected words are not capitalized and/or italicized every time they appear; sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are both capitalized and italicized, sometimes only one, and sometimes neither. Nature and Stella are the most commonly formatted words... I'm not sure if this has significance?