Emily Dickinson’s “‘Why do I love’ You, Sir?”
The speaker of Emily Dickinson’s oddly punctuated poem “‘Why do I love’ You, Sir?” uses logic to demonstrate the reasoning that leads the created soul to experience love for its Creator.
Introduction with Text of “‘Why do I love’ You, Sir?”
This unusual Emily Dickinson poem begins with the following oddly punctuated first line: “Why do I love” You, Sir?
Emily Dickinson’s Editors
When analyzing the poems of Emily Dickinson’s, it is useful to remember that she did not work with an editor for the purpose of publishing. Her poems were first edited after her death by Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Mabel Loomis Todd.
But, unfortunately, their reworking often smoothed out Dickinson’s quirky use of language to the point of crushing the innovation and nuances that made her the unique poet that she was. Therefore, Thomas H. Johnson restored her poems to the originals as found in the bundles (fascicles) of poems written in her own handwriting.
Thus the reader must be aware that Dickinson might have been persuaded to alter some of her quirks for publication, if she had been assured that her meaning would not be changed but instead made clearer by the changes.
The odd punctuation of this poem, especially the first line, is an example of a Dickinsonian quirk which, no doubt, would have been altered by an editor after close consultation with the poet. Indeed, it would be fascinating to hear Dickinson’s explanation for placing “Why do I love” in quotation marks, making it appear as a unit of thought that seems to address the second person “You.”
No one can ever know for certain what significance that odd punctuation might have had for the poet, and it is likely that modern readers may simply dismiss the quotation marks as they begin the poem.
The poem features four stanzas; the first two are innovative cinquains, the third is an innovative sestet, and the fourth is a Dickinsonian quatrain. The poem dramatizes the theme of God’s love as mystery.
But it also makes it clear that the speaker is simplifying that emotion: it is merely a natural sequence of events that the created soul will love its Creator. The complication comes in giving thought to that sequence. The speaker seems to desire to uncomplicate the issue once and for all.
“Why do I love” You, Sir?
“Why do I love” You, Sir?
Because –
The Wind does not require the Grass
To answer – Wherefore when He pass
She cannot keep Her place.
Because He knows — and
Do not You –
And We know not –
Enough for Us
The Wisdom it be so –
The Lightning – never asked an Eye
Wherefore it shut — when He was by –
Because He knows it cannot speak –
And reasons not contained –
– Of Talk –
There be – preferred by Daintier Folk –
The Sunrise – Sire – compelleth Me –
Because He’s Sunrise – and I see –
Therefore – Then –
I love Thee –
Commentary on “‘Why do I love’ You, Sir?”
The speaker of Dickinson’s oddly punctuated poem uses logic to demonstrate the reasoning that leads the created soul to love for its Creator.
First Stanza: Unavoidable Love
“Why do I love” You, Sir?
Because –
The Wind does not require the Grass
To answer – Wherefore when He pass
She cannot keep Her place.
The speaker seems to be talking to the Divine Reality (God), calling Him “Sir,” and questioning Him as to why she loves Him. Then the speaker replies with her own answer, “Because — / The Wind does not require the Grass / To answer.” However, in order to completely respond to this amazing mystery, the speaker finds it necessary to compare her feelings with phenomena of nature.
She thus decides to compare her love to the act of love the grass possesses. The grass simply cannot prevent itself from undergoing its waving motion after the wind has blown through it.
The speaker’s love for her Heavenly Father Creator God is just simply natural. There can be no questioning it. Of course, she will continue to question and answer. That’s just the way she rolls!
Second Stanza: The Wisdom of Love
Because He knows — and
Do not You –
And We know not –
Enough for Us
The Wisdom it be so –
In the second stanza, the speaker suggests that God as Father along with all she knows about anything, holds the “Wisdom” motivating the love in the soul of the created children for their Creator. Nothing more is necessary, because everything is enfolded in that love and wisdom.
Third Stanza: “Why” Remains Irrelevant
The Lightning – never asked an Eye
Wherefore it shut — when He was by –
Because He knows it cannot speak –
And reasons not contained –
– Of Talk –
There be – preferred by Daintier Folk –
In the third stanza, the speaker returns to describing phenomena of nature to explicate the “why”: she reveals that that love eruption is akin to lightning striking the eye. The eye will never stop to ask “why” it is acting as it does as it closes from the onslaught of the light’s sudden brilliance. Intimately coalescing occurrences do not motivate one to ask why. They just are. Or it is so obvious that no one has ever in history bothered to question it.
The speaker is nevertheless still aware that human minds crave reasons for things and events. The human mind wants to discuss and declaim about the ineffable, even though the ineffable will never be “contained — / — Of Talk.” The mind may be likened to “Daintier Folk,” who wish everything to be clarified in words, despite the fact that words often cannot perform that feat.
By qualifying the mind and others who are not privy to such erudition as simply “daintier,” the speaker manages to suggest that there are those who are merely incapable of seeing what is right before their eyes. The employment of such a euphemism renders the speaker both kind and sympathetic and yet at the same time demonstrates her unique talent and deep mental perception.
Fourth Stanza: The Logic of Loving One’s Creator
The Sunrise – Sire – compelleth Me –
Because He’s Sunrise – and I see –
Therefore – Then –
I love Thee –
The love for God, for this speaker, remains quite uncomplicated: as the sun rises, her eyes perceive light. As the Creator creates, the created loves. To her mind, only the completely daft can question the logic of loving one’s Creator.
But even without uttering any negativity regarding those who lack such natural understanding, the speaker has demonstrated her stance which remains replete with obvious implications.
Linda's Literary Home 