This review will be comprised of a direct analysis of the lines. I will not be writing this in an efficient essay format as I believe that there is a lot of meaning to the lines that I would like to address to the semi-fullest. In order to not make this too long, however, I will not be including full-blown explanations on the concepts that I will be writing about. This may result in parts where you have absolutely no idea what I’m writing about, and I apologize in advance for this.
As virtuous men pass mildly away,
And whisper to their souls to go,
Whilst some of their sad friends do say,
“Now his breath goes,” and some say, “No.”
So let us melt, and make no noise,
No tear-floods, nor sigh-tempests move;
‘Twere profanation of our joys
To tell the laity our love.
Moving of th’ earth brings harms and fears;
Men reckon what it did, and meant;
But trepidation of the spheres,
Though far greater, is innocent.
Dull sublunary lovers’ love
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Of absence, ‘cause it doth remove
The thing which elemented it.
But we by a love so much refine,
That ourselves know not what it is,
Inter-assured of the mind,
Care less, eyes, lips and hands to miss.
Our two souls therefore, which are one,
Though I must go, endure not yet
A breach, but an expansion,
Like gold to aery thinness beat.
If they be two, they are two so
As stiff twin compasses are two
Thy soul, the fix’d foot, makes no show
To move, but doth, if th’ other do.
And thought it in the centre sit,
Yet, when the other far doth roam,
It leans, and hearkens after it,
And grows erect, as that comes home.
Such wilt thou be to me, who must,
Like th’ other foot, obliquely run;
Thy firmness makes my circle just,
And makes me end where I begun.
*
As virtuous men pass mildly away,
And whisper to their souls to go,
Whilst some of their sad friends do say,
“Now his breath goes,” and some say, “No.”
From the beginning, the writer creates a distinction between two answers to a question, with the first couplet providing the question and the second providing the answers. The first couplet, the question, talks about the death of men and their departure from life. Thus, the question is, very simply: where do you go after death?
The second couplet offers two answers. The first is “Now his breath goes,” and the second is the denial of the first one. Translated, the first answer is “Away from the world,” while the second answer is “Not away from the world.” This refers to the concept of absolute conservation of existence, which leads to the idea of all existence being “of the same book” as Donne put it. As further explanation will turn this into a longwinded philosophical discussion, I will get to the point.
Are humans ultimately linked as one, or are they separate existences upon themselves?
So let us melt, and make no noise,
No tear-floods, nor sigh-tempests move;
‘Twere profanation of our joys
To tell the laity our love.
The speaker wishes to not make a big deal out of their separation. He wants their love to remain pure and special. In other words, he wants their love to be so perfect that it cannot be touched by tragedy.
From this, it can be inferred that Donne’s answer is the second one. He believes in the interconnectedness of humankind, and seeks the completion of the circle of perfection with regards to their love.
Moving of th’ earth brings harms and fears;
Men reckon what it did, and meant;
But trepidation of the spheres,
Though far greater, is innocent.
This refers to two different viewpoints; that of a human’s and that of God’s. To humans, change in their perceived reality can be seen as harmful, and something to be feared. This is because humans only see a part of the whole picture, and only because they see just a part can they perceive things such as destruction. At the same time, nothing that humans see will ever be of great significance. This is characteristic of the first answer.
To God, however, the world is and always will be a single construct, never to change. The easiest way to think of this would be to cite the law of conservation of mass: no matter what motion, explosion, implosion, etc. occurs in the universe, the net mass will always remain the same; in other words, nothing changes. God sees the whole picture rather than a part of it, and thus knows why everything happens and where everything goes. His/her/its net perception is the same no matter what occurs in reality, and thus there is no change perceived. This is characteristic of the second answer.
Note: I am neither confirming nor denying the existence of God in this analysis. Trust me, you don’t want to know.
Dull sublunary lovers’ love
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Of absence, ‘cause it doth remove
The thing which elemented it.
This is Donne mocking people who believe in the first answer. Not much else to say.
But we by a love so much refine,
That ourselves know not what it is,
Inter-assured of the mind,
Care less, eyes, lips and hands to miss.
This is Donne priding himself in his perfect love. I consider this the best stanza of the poem because I am impressed that someone actually understood this concept back then (yes, I realize that I sound arrogant). Also, I consider this the best stanza because the concept introduced is the only one in this poem that I personally believe in.
I have talked about this in class, though my explanation then wasn’t very good due the fact that I was experiencing the annoying backlash that occurs whenever I talk about philosophy. I will write the same example I gave before here.
Consider this:
1. The world is gray.
2. The only colour that you can see is gray.
3. The only colour that anyone else in the world can see is gray.
4. There is no other colour in the world.
5. Under these circumstances, will you ever use the word “gray” or “colour” to refer to your surroundings?
The above is an example of the concept portrayed in the stanza, albeit a slightly confusing one. Stated plainly, it is the concept that once something reaches perfection, it is no longer perceivable in reality and therefore nonexistent. In that sense, the definition of perfection itself is “nonexistence.” If you are unsure of this concept, then try to in your mind think of something that is absolutely perfect and can be perceived in the world. If you do, tell me and I will pay you a hundred dollars if I deem your argument legitimate.
To clarify, this concept is not about relative perfection. Relative perfection is when you reach a state of perfection relative to the parameters of the referenced subject. An example of this is achieving 100% on a math test; you have reached perfection relative to the questions on the test, not relative to the subject itself.
Anyway, back to the poem.
The speaker wishes their love to become so refined that it reaches the stage of perfection, which will in turn result in the termination of its perceivable existence. He wants their love to become such a pure and obvious thing that it no longer needs to be addressed; in other words, he wants it to fuse with their consciousnesses.
Our two souls therefore, which are one,
Though I must go, endure not yet
A breach, but an expansion,
Like gold to aery thinness beat.
At this point it is established that his love and bonding with her has reached the stage of perfection, and that they are now one single existence on the spiritual level. There is a paradox conveyed in this stanza (and, in fact, throughout the entire poem) that shows that the speaker, despite being a believer of the second answer, uses concepts characteristic of the first. Even though it is established that their bond is perfect, he still urges his love to look at their physical separation in a positive rather than negative light even though no net change is occurring. This may suggest that the speaker simply wishes to believe in the second answer, instead of actually having achieved it.
Note: Paradoxes are just a glorified version of contradictions, and like them don’t actually exist in reality. If you can think of a legitimate one, I will pay you a trillion dollars.
If they be two, they are two so
As stiff twin compasses are two
Thy soul, the fix’d foot, makes no show
To move, but doth, if th’ other do.
Here the speaker seems to confirm that he is not actually a believer of the second answer. He sees his love and him as two rather than one, showing that he still views themselves as separate beings. However, he also demonstrates his wish to become a believer of the first, by grouping them in his conscious and forcing the perception of a single existence. Like putting two halves together to make a whole, they have become compliments of each other.
And thought it in the centre sit,
Yet, when the other far doth roam,
It leans, and hearkens after it,
And grows erect, as that comes home.
This provides a very clear and simple metaphor that characterizes their complimentary relationship. The easiest way to think about it would be to take the two compass example (the name of the mathematical tool of which this refers to escapes me at the moment). Mathematically speaking, the tool always forms a triangle, which is always 180 degrees. Because the two parts are joined, no matter how far one stretches, the other will compliment the movement, maintaining the triangle and thus maintaining the net degree of 180; in other words, no change is occurring. This is obviously characteristic of the second answer.
Such wilt thou be to me, who must,
Like th’ other foot, obliquely run;
Thy firmness makes my circle just,
And makes me end where I begun.
This closes things off, with the speaker insisting that their love has reached the stage of perfection. What’s interesting is the last couplet, which actually suggests that the speaker is incomplete without his love. Rather than their existences becoming two halves that melded together, he says that their existences were two halves of the whole to begin with. This leads to the idea of fate, a concept that I will neither confirm nor deny as it doesn’t matter either way. The last line, “makes me end where I begun,” shows that with their union, he will be able to see the whole picture. Their circle will become complete and eternal, and their love perfect.
