loved... ,” l. 12), and as part of a plural noun and
nominative structure (“those lovers scorn whom that
love doth possess?” l. 13). Love is subject and object,
active and passive, singular and manifold. Love is
intrinsically intertwined with all of Astrophil’s thoughts
and deeds, and as such is inescapable. He has con-
structed his own confi nement.
Most of the critical controversy surrounding the
poem is focused on the rhetorical questions in the ses-
tet, particularly the fi nal question: “Do they call virtue
there ungratefulness?” (l. 14) There are two basic
approaches. The fi rst group believes that the question
reads, “Do heavenly ladies call their lovers’ virtue
ungratefulness?” The second holds the position that
the question reads, “Do heavenly ladies call their own
ungratefulness virtue?” The fi rst school of thought is
more widely accepted. This interpretation is based pri-
marily on the COURT CULTURE that infl uenced the SON-
NET tradition. Through the use of rhetorical questions,
the speaker points out the absurdity of his position. In
early modern COURTLY LOVE games, male lovers were
supposed to be utterly and completely devoted to their
lady, focusing on her and her alone with a single-
minded, passionate determination. Astrophil laments
that his unfl agging love has been called unintelligent
by Stella, as he asks the moon, “Is constant love deemed
there but want of wit?” (l. 10). Yet she is truly the one
who is acting irrationally, since she wants to be loved
but then mocks the person who loves her. Further, she
terms his virtue in the face of no response “ungrateful-
ness.” Again, the speaker complains that the ladies
look down on what they should actually hold dear.
The second school of thought relies on the rhetorical
idea of paromologia, conceeding one point in orer to
gain the advantage. The speaker has carefully con-
structed his opponent’s position, but then dramatically
reverses the positions, undercutting his opponent all the
more. In this case, the speaker, who has been complain-
ing about the heavenly ladies, unexpectedly asks these
same selfi sh women to comment on their own behavior,
which smacks of superiority. Thus, he has provided
them with a rather painful example of their rudeness,
perhaps in the hope that they will gain some self-knowl-
edge. At the least, the proud “virtuous” beauties should
have gained something unanticipated to consider.
These positions are complicated somewhat by the
mythological connotations contained within the son-
net. In the fi rst reading, the speaker undercuts his
position in choosing to address the moon. In classical
mythology, the moon is associated with Diana, the vir-
gin goddess known for her changeable nature, who
viciously guards her chastity. That Astrophil assumes
the moon has been shot by Cupid seems impossible, as
she should be immune to his arrows of love. Further-
more, as the goddess of the hunt, Diana is an archer in
her own right and able to shoot her own arrows of jus-
tice. Therefore, for Astrophil to ask the moon to see his
point is useless, as the moon has never been and can
never be lovesick, as he is. In this case, the virginal
moon would indeed consider his dogged determina-
tion to love the unwilling lady as “ungratefulness.” If
the moon is directly aligned with Stella, however, the
mythological associations uphold the second reading.
Stella, like the moon, is cold, remote, fi ckle, and
untouched. In this case, Astrophil is virtuous not only
because of his constancy but also because he restrains
himself sexually. He reminds her that such self-control
is painful, emotionally and perhaps physically, and
deserves compassion and approval. Instead of being
considerate of his plight, Stella instead unreasonably
charges her lover with being ungrateful. She believes
she is being reasonable and kind simply by allowing
Astrophil to serve her, and she insists that he should be
content with what he has. Since he is not truly satisfi ed
merely by enslaving himself, he is then compelled to
point out her folly.
Other critics have employed psychoanalytic
approaches in interpreting Sonnet 31. As a poem about
sublimation, not fulfi llment, it is preoccupied with the
psychological status of male lovers. It is clear from the
outset that the speaker is bitter toward women and
society. Because of social conventions, he is trapped
into devotedly serving one woman despite her cold dis-
dain. The sarcasm employed by the speaker betrays his
true feelings about the state of affairs. By speaking to
the moon and imbuing it with human characteristics
and feelings, the speaker has displaced his own emo-
tions. Displacement results in emotional distance; this
is considered by psychoanalysts to be a defense mecha-
nism used to stave off depression, but actually resultingASTROPHIL AND STELLA: SONNET 31 47