Amoretti’s sonnet 54 portrays really interestingly the insecurity behind an artist’s inability to take criticism. I’m referring to the speaker as ‘he’ here, but don’t believe they necessarily have to be a man. The speaker begins by comparing this life he shares with another to a theater. He relates his love – either the person who he loves, or his abstract feeling of love – to an audience member. The speaker writes of his love’s presence as secondary to his own, explaining that “Of this worlds Theatre in which we stay, / My love lyke the Spectator ydly sits” (1-2). This love watches from the outside as the speaker narrates his own story, and every story. The lines “Beholding me that all the pageants play, / Disguysing diversly my troubled wits” (3-4) reveal that the speaker plays every part, dictates every voice, and expresses every emotion. Conversely, his love remains a bystander, robbed of real autonomy in this unfolding story. If the speaker plays every part in the theater of their romance, the relationship he seems to refer to describes only his own self-obsession. He continues to perform alone, continuously disguising his true character and preventing his love from assuming an active role in the tale of their partnership.
The speaker speaks of this person as his ‘love’, but also complains of her cruelty. He feels the contempt she holds for his acting, as “when I laugh she mocks, and when I cry / She laughs, and hardens evermore her hart” (11-12). She seems to not believe in, or care for, in the sincerity of his emotion. His crying seems comical to her, and for ‘evermore’ she withholds her sympathy. She lacks trust in him– and for good reason! He shows no concern for anything she may have to say. He asks, “What then can move her? if nor merth nor mone, / She is no woman, but a sencelesse stone.” (13-14); he cannot move her emotionally, and thus confirms she has no sense of humanity or womanhood. He now considers her a foolish variation of the most inanimate of objects: a stone.
Rather than wondering if her failure to appreciate his performance may relate to the quality of his acting, he instead decides that she must be inherently stupid. In fourteen lines, he has professed his love, and compared that same love to a useless rock. He immediately invalidates criticism – even when it comes from those supposedly important to him – for he stays so sure of the perfection of his craft.
This was such an interesting take on this poem! When preparing for my groups presentation on this poem for tomorrow, we discussed whether the relationship could be considered “real” if it’s being related to such a theatrical bond between two people, especially if one does not feel the passion that the other proclaims. I think you were able to answer that question in a very abstract and methodical way. I never imagined the woman to be anything other than to blame — yet your interpretation was able to open that door for me. Who is Spencer to say that his unrequited love is the fault of Elizabeth, and because of this she should be berated for her indifference? It is an incredibly interesting view, and one that I will think about the next time I read a poem about the supposed “coldness” of a woman.