This sonnet by Elizabeth Barrett Browning stands as one of the most profound expressions of romantic love in the English literary tradition, a luminous declaration that transcends its Victorian origins to speak directly to the human heart across centuries. In its measured yet fervent articulation of affection, the poem invites us into a world where love is not merely an emotion but a comprehensive force shaping existence itself. Readers encounter a voice both intimate and expansive, one that enumerates the dimensions of devotion with a sincerity that feels as fresh today as it did upon its publication. The enthusiasm poetry ignites in us stems precisely from such moments: when language captures the ineffable, rendering visible the architecture of the soul’s deepest longings. Barrett Browning’s work here does not simply describe love; it embodies it, weaving personal vulnerability into a tapestry of universal resonance.

To fully appreciate this masterpiece, one must first situate it within its historical and cultural milieu. Elizabeth Barrett Browning composed her sonnets during the mid-nineteenth century, amid the height of the Victorian era in England. This was a period marked by rapid industrialization, strict social conventions, and a prevailing emphasis on moral propriety, yet also by fervent intellectual and artistic movements that questioned the boundaries of personal freedom and emotional expression. The Romantic legacy lingered, with its celebration of individual passion and the sublime, while the emerging realist tendencies in fiction and poetry grappled with the complexities of everyday life. Barrett Browning, born in 1806 into a wealthy Jamaican plantation family, navigated these currents with remarkable resilience. Her early life was shaped by scholarly pursuits— she was largely self-educated in classical languages and literature—and by chronic illness, which confined her for years to her family home in Wimpole Street. The cultural expectations placed upon women of her class were confining: marriage, domesticity, and intellectual subordination often defined their spheres. Yet Barrett Browning defied these norms through her poetry, which gained her significant acclaim even before her famous courtship with Robert Browning.

The sonnet emerges from the intensely personal context of that courtship. Robert Browning, six years her junior and an admirer of her work, initiated a correspondence that blossomed into love despite her father’s tyrannical opposition to any suitors. Their secret engagement and subsequent elopement to Italy in 1846 represented a radical assertion of personal agency against patriarchal authority. Italy itself, with its warmer climate and artistic heritage, became a place of renewal for Barrett Browning, whose health improved markedly there. This biographical backdrop infuses the poem with authenticity. The speaker’s enumeration of love’s ways mirrors the poet’s own transformation from invalid to ardent lover, a journey that challenged Victorian ideals of feminine passivity. In an age when women’s voices in literature were often marginalized or sentimentalized, Barrett Browning crafted a work that asserts intellectual and emotional equality in love. Her enthusiasm for the Italian sonnet tradition—drawing from Petrarch and others—allowed her to adapt a form associated with male pursuit to express a woman’s comprehensive devotion, thereby subverting cultural expectations while honoring poetic heritage.

Philosophically, the poem engages with concepts of love that echo Platonic ideals and Christian mysticism. The opening query, “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways,” establishes a rational framework for what is inherently irrational, suggesting that love can be both enumerated and boundless. This paradox lies at the heart of the work’s power. Love extends “to the depth and breadth and height / My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight / For the ends of being and ideal grace.” Here, spatial metaphors evoke an almost metaphysical vastness, aligning love with the soul’s pursuit of transcendence. The reference to “ideal grace” invites comparison with Platonic forms, where earthly affection gestures toward divine perfection. Yet Barrett Browning grounds this in the tangible: love reaches “to the level of every day’s / Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.” This juxtaposition of the cosmic and the domestic underscores a central Victorian tension between spiritual aspiration and material reality. In a culture increasingly secularized by scientific advances, the poem reaffirms love’s sacred dimension without dogma, portraying it as a sustaining force amid life’s routines.

The literary devices employed enhance this thematic richness. Imagery of measurement and dimension dominates, creating a sense of love as an active, exploratory endeavor rather than passive sentiment. The soul “feeling out of sight” conjures a tactile exploration of the invisible, a metaphor for introspection and emotional depth that resonates profoundly. Alliteration and assonance contribute to the poem’s musicality and emotional cadence, as in the soft repetitions that mimic the quiet rhythms of daily life or the passionate surges of memory. Personification appears subtly, granting abstract concepts like “being” and “grace” a living presence. The poem’s progression from grand abstractions to intimate particulars builds cumulative intensity, mirroring the way love permeates every layer of experience. Barrett Browning’s use of enjambment propels the reader forward, enacting the ceaseless flow of devotion that the words describe. These techniques, masterfully integrated, amplify the emotional impact, allowing the poem to unfold like a living conversation between speaker and beloved.

Thematic exploration reveals love in multifaceted glory. Spiritual love intertwines with the ethical and the personal. “I love thee freely, as men strive for right; / I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.” These lines evoke moral striving and disinterested virtue, drawing parallels to Enlightenment ideals of liberty and integrity. Love here is not possessive but liberating, a choice aligned with justice rather than acclaim. This purity contrasts with the “passion put to use / In my old griefs,” transforming past suffering into fuel for present ardor. Biographical insights illuminate this: Barrett Browning endured the loss of her brother in a sailing accident and long-term invalidism, experiences that infused her work with resilience. The reference to “childhood’s faith” and “lost saints” suggests a recovery of innocence through romantic love, a redemptive arc that echoes Romantic notions of childhood as a state of grace. Love becomes a bridge between fractured past and hopeful future, reclaiming what time and circumstance have eroded.

Further, the poem contemplates love’s endurance beyond mortality: “I love thee with the breath, / Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose, / I shall but love thee better after death.” This closing assertion elevates the personal to the eternal, confronting mortality with defiant optimism. In Victorian culture, where death loomed large amid high mortality rates and religious fervor, such lines offered solace and inspiration. Philosophically, it engages with ideas of immortality found in thinkers like Plato or later existential reflections on love as defiance against oblivion. Love is not diminished by life’s finitude but amplified, suggesting a continuity of the soul that transcends physical separation. This perspective invites readers to consider their own relationships through a lens of profound commitment, fostering empathy and self-reflection.

Comparatively, Barrett Browning’s sonnet dialogues richly with the broader canon of love poetry. One might draw parallels with Shakespeare’s sonnets, particularly those that probe love’s constancy amid time’s decay, yet hers distinguishes itself through its female perspective and integration of everyday tenderness. Where Petrarchan conventions often idealize the distant beloved, Barrett Browning’s speaker claims agency, counting and claiming love’s manifestations with confident intimacy. In contrast to the passionate turbulence of Byron or the melancholic introspection of Keats, her work achieves a harmonious balance, celebrating love’s quiet necessities alongside its grand passions. This comparative lens highlights her innovation: a woman poet articulating mutual, egalitarian devotion in an era when such expressions were rare. Her influence extended to later writers, including modernist poets who valued emotional authenticity, and even to popular culture, where the sonnet’s opening lines have become shorthand for romantic eloquence.

The emotional impact of this poem is immediate and enduring, stirring a sense of recognition and uplift. Readers often find themselves moved to tears or quiet awe, as the verses articulate feelings long felt but seldom voiced with such precision. The enthusiasm poetry evokes here lies in its capacity to validate the full spectrum of human emotion—from grief reclaimed as passion to the simple needs of daily companionship. In moments of personal joy or sorrow, the sonnet serves as both mirror and balm, reminding us that love, in its truest form, encompasses the entirety of our being. Its accessibility stems from concrete imagery—the sun and candle-light, breath and smiles—paired with universal themes, making it approachable yet layered enough for repeated scholarly engagement. One cannot help but feel invigorated by its optimism, a testament to the redemptive power of connection in a world often marked by isolation.

Delving deeper into cultural context, the poem also reflects shifting gender dynamics. Victorian women writers like the Brontës or George Eliot navigated similar terrains of emotional expression, yet Barrett Browning’s directness in love poetry was pioneering. Her marriage to Robert, itself a literary partnership of equals, modeled the very freedom her verses celebrate. Letters between the Brownings reveal a correspondence steeped in mutual admiration, where intellectual discourse fueled romantic fire. This biographical layer enriches interpretation: the “old griefs” allude not only to personal losses but to the stifling atmosphere of her family home, making the poem an act of triumphant liberation. Culturally, it challenged the cult of true womanhood, which prized self-sacrifice and reticence, by presenting love as an empowering, expansive force.

Philosophically, the work aligns with existential affirmations of meaning through relationship. Thinkers from Kierkegaard to contemporary relational psychology echo its emphasis on love as choice and commitment. The enumeration of ways resists reductionism, instead multiplying perspectives to affirm love’s inexhaustibility. This multiplicity invites philosophical inquiry into the nature of the self: does love complete the soul, or does it reveal depths already present? Barrett Browning suggests both, portraying the beloved as catalyst for the speaker’s fullest realization. Such insights resonate in an age like ours, where digital connections often lack depth, underscoring the poem’s timeless relevance.

Literary devices further this philosophical depth. The progression from sensory to spiritual imagery creates a holistic portrait, employing synecdoche in “breath, / Smiles, tears” to represent the whole of lived experience. Repetition of “I love thee” functions as a rhythmic incantation, reinforcing devotion’s constancy. These elements, woven seamlessly, heighten emotional authenticity, allowing readers to inhabit the speaker’s perspective fully. The absence of overt conflict in the poem—focusing instead on affirmation—distinguishes it, offering a vision of love as harmony rather than struggle, though informed by the poet’s own hardships.

In exploring themes of faith and transcendence, the poem bridges sacred and secular. The conditional “if God choose” acknowledges divine will while asserting human agency in love’s continuation. This nuance reflects Barrett Browning’s own religious sensibilities, tempered by personal trial, and invites readers from diverse backgrounds to find meaning. Comparatively, it echoes Donne’s metaphysical conceits in blending erotic and divine love, yet with a gentler, more inclusive tone suited to her era and gender.

The sonnet’s enduring appeal lies in its emotional resonance, which fosters connection across divides. Enthusiasts of poetry often cite it as a touchstone for weddings or anniversaries, not for sentimentality alone but for its profound sincerity. It captures the transformative power of love to heal, elevate, and eternalize, inspiring generations to love more deeply. In classrooms and private readings alike, it sparks discussion on authenticity, vulnerability, and the art of expression, demonstrating literature’s capacity to nurture empathy.

Expanding on biographical insights, Barrett Browning’s correspondence with Robert reveals the sonnets as both private catharsis and public offering. She initially hesitated to publish them, viewing them as too personal, yet their release enriched Victorian literature by humanizing the poetess. Her later works, such as Aurora Leigh, continued this exploration of women’s artistic and emotional lives, cementing her legacy. The poem, thus, stands as a pivotal moment in her oeuvre, bridging personal narrative with universal truth.

Culturally, its reception evolved from Victorian acclaim to modernist appreciation and beyond. In feminist literary criticism, it exemplifies subversive voice; in romantic studies, ideal partnership. Its adaptability speaks to poetry’s vitality, how a single work can illuminate myriad human experiences. Readers today, amid global uncertainties, may find solace in its assurance of love’s persistence, a message of hope that transcends temporal bounds.

Thematically, everyday love—“most quiet need”—challenges romantic idealism by valorizing the ordinary, a precursor to later domestic realism in literature. This grounds the sublime, making the poem relatable across social strata. Passion from “old griefs” introduces psychological depth, anticipating modern understandings of trauma and resilience in relationships. Love as reclamation of “lost saints” suggests spiritual renewal through human connection, a humanistic perspective that values lived experience over dogma.

Emotionally, the cumulative effect builds to catharsis. Each declaration layers intensity, culminating in posthumous devotion that affirms life’s meaning. This impact lingers, encouraging introspection: how do we love? The poem models not just articulation but embodiment, urging readers toward greater presence in their affections. Poetry’s magic resides here, in transforming private feeling into shared revelation, fostering community through individual truth.

In conclusion, Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s sonnet endures as a beacon of poetic excellence and emotional profundity. Its historical rootedness in Victorian defiance and personal triumph amplifies its themes of multifaceted love, rendered through exquisite literary craft. Comparative richness, biographical authenticity, and philosophical inquiry converge to create an experience that delights and moves. One emerges from engagement with it invigorated, reminded of humanity’s capacity for profound connection. This is poetry at its finest: accessible in its warmth, sophisticated in its vision, eternally resonant in its celebration of the heart’s boundless ways. It invites us, always, to count our own loves anew, with gratitude and wonder for the art that makes such counting possible.

William Ernest Henley’s “O, gather me the rose” is a compact lyric of urgency, erotic tenderness, and philosophical defiance. Its appeal begins in the apparent simplicity of its central image: a rose must be gathered while it is still flowering, because the season of bloom is brief and winter is already waiting beyond summer’s smile. Yet this familiar carpe diem premise—the injunction to seize the day—quickly deepens into something sterner and more distinctive. Henley does not merely celebrate pleasure before it fades; he confronts the human consciousness of irreversibility. Dreams may be “foregone,” deeds may be “forborne,” and regret may become a consuming worm. The poem’s invitation to love is therefore not frivolous, but grave. It emerges from a world in which time is relentless, death is inescapable, and the greatest danger may be the opportunity one fails to accept.

The poem belongs to a long European tradition of lyric poetry that uses flowers, seasons, youth, and transitory natural beauty to dramatize mortality. Classical poetry, Renaissance verse, Cavalier lyric, and nineteenth-century aesthetic writing all repeatedly return to this imaginative territory. One hears an immediate kinship with Robert Herrick’s famous request that young people gather rosebuds before their brief season passes, as well as with Andrew Marvell’s more argumentative seduction lyric, in which time’s “winged chariot” hurries near. Henley’s poem shares these predecessors’ conviction that time transforms beauty into loss. However, it does not reproduce their manner exactly. Herrick’s pastoral grace can feel ceremonious and socially conventional; Marvell’s rhetoric develops through intellectual wit, hyperbole, and debate. Henley’s voice is more compressed, emotionally naked, and darkly modern. His rose is not merely a token of maidenhood or seasonal beauty. It becomes an emblem of all the possibilities that vanish when human beings defer love, courage, or joy.

Henley’s historical position helps explain this mixture of traditional form and existential pressure. Writing in the later Victorian period, he inherited a culture deeply shaped by Christian moral language, Romantic reverence for nature, industrial modernity, scientific challenge, and an increasingly unsettled awareness of individual isolation. Victorian literature often turns to nature not because nature offers simple consolation, but because its cycles expose the discrepancy between human desire and impersonal law. Summer returns, perhaps, but the particular summer of an individual life does not. A rose may bloom again, but not the rose gathered—or neglected—at this particular moment. Henley’s language of “Time” and “fate” registers this awareness with unusual severity. These forces are not gentle abstractions. They are active agents that stand behind human experience and steadily reduce the field of possible action.

The poem’s opening apostrophe, “O, gather me the rose,” establishes a voice of immediate address. The speaker speaks not into a void, but toward an intimate listener, someone capable of gathering, loving, remembering, and joining in a shared defiance of fate. The repeated “rose” gives the opening a musical insistence, as if desire must say the beloved object twice in order to make it present. Repetition also creates a slight hesitation: the speaker seems to linger over the word precisely because the flower’s beauty is too vulnerable to secure. The phrase “while yet in flower we find it” intensifies the precariousness. The rose is not simply flowering; it is available only “yet,” only for now. The word contains the entire temporal argument of the poem. It names the fleeting interval between arrival and disappearance.

The first stanza’s seasonal movement is elegantly economical. “Summer smiles, but summer goes, / And winter waits behind it.” The personification of summer makes its departure feel almost emotionally charged: summer smiles, suggesting warmth, ease, sensuality, and generosity. Yet the conjunction “but” immediately interrupts that sweetness. The season is not a stable condition but a passing expression. Winter, moreover, does not merely arrive after summer; it “waits behind it.” This phrasing gives winter a hidden but permanent presence. Even amid brightness, darkness is already poised nearby. The emotional effect is not merely melancholy. It gives the present a sharpened intensity. If winter waits behind summer, then every moment of warmth is shadowed by its end, and that shadow makes the warmth more precious rather than less.

Henley’s seasonal symbolism is conventional in one sense, but he handles it with an almost fatalistic force. Summer signifies youth, erotic possibility, health, and the abundance of the senses. Winter traditionally figures age, depletion, grief, and death. Yet the poem does not dwell upon the details of either season. There are no landscapes, no luxuriant garden scenes, no decorative descriptions of petals or weather. This restraint matters. Henley does not allow nature to become picturesque. His images remain distilled into symbols, stripped to their emotional essentials. The rose, summer, sunshine, myrtle, and swallow form a bright cluster of life-affirming images, while winter, worm, dark, and regret form a counter-cluster of decay and negation. The poem’s power arises from the friction between these two imaginative fields: bloom and canker, flight and darkness, dream and loss.

The second stanza shifts from the fleeting flower to the psychological consequences of delay. “For with the dream foregone, foregone, / The deed forborne for ever,” the speaker warns, regret begins its work. Here Henley’s repetitions become especially expressive. “Foregone, foregone” sounds like an echo of something already gone beyond recovery. The doubled word mimics the mind’s obsessive return to an irreversible decision: one does not simply lose an opportunity; one replays its loss. Similarly, “forborne for ever” joins voluntary restraint to permanent consequence. A deed is “forborne” when one chooses not to perform it, perhaps out of caution, fear, propriety, or hesitation. The poem’s tragedy is therefore not only that external forces take happiness away. Human beings themselves participate in loss by refusing the action that love or desire demands.

The image of regret as a worm is particularly striking. The worm belongs to a long poetic and religious vocabulary of corruption, burial, and inward torment. It suggests something small, persistent, and degrading rather than spectacular. Regret does not strike like lightning; it gnaws. The verb “canker” strengthens this sense of slow internal destruction. A canker is an infection, a blight, or a corrosive growth. It can damage a flower from within, making the image especially apt in a poem that begins with a rose. The neglected rose of the opening has become, in effect, an inward wound. This transformation reveals Henley’s psychological sophistication. The poem suggests that the opposite of love is not necessarily hate, but paralysis: the failure to act, confess, risk, or accept joy when it is offered.

The line “And Time will turn him never” gives the poem one of its most uncompromising statements. Time is personified, but unlike smiling summer, it is utterly resistant to appeal. The wording is slightly archaic and forceful, evoking the elevated diction of older lyric traditions. “Turn him never” means that Time will never reverse his course, never turn back to restore what has been relinquished. The masculine pronoun makes Time seem like a stern, perhaps tyrannical figure. At the same time, the sentence possesses a hard finality that allows no loophole. There is no promise of a second chance, no sentimental assurance that lost opportunities will somehow return in another form. Henley’s carpe diem argument is founded not on hedonistic exuberance but on the terrifying certainty that the past cannot be revised.

This forceful encounter with time has a biographical resonance in Henley’s life. Henley endured severe illness from childhood, including tubercular disease of the bone, and spent significant periods in hospitals. One of his legs was amputated while he was still young, and he lived with physical pain and disability throughout his life. It would be reductive to treat every poem by Henley as direct autobiography, yet his work repeatedly exhibits a tough-minded awareness of bodily vulnerability and adversity. He is famously associated with poems of endurance and self-command, most notably “Invictus,” whose speaker insists upon an unconquered spirit despite confinement and punishment. “O, gather me the rose” presents a softer, more intimate register, but it shares a related resistance to passive surrender. The speaker cannot defeat Time or abolish death; instead, he proposes an act of love that “cheat[s]” fate of its complete victory.

The third stanza provides the poem’s emotional and philosophical center: “So well it were to love, my love.” The phrase is beautifully balanced between counsel and confession. “So well it were” has the sound of an old-fashioned moral proposition, as though the speaker were calmly reaching a reasoned conclusion. But “my love” suddenly makes that conclusion personal. The beloved is not an abstract audience for a philosophical lesson; she or he is the person with whom the speaker seeks a living answer to mortality. Love in this poem is both affection and action. It does not promise permanence in the sense of escaping death. Rather, it is worthwhile because it creates a moment of freely chosen intimacy in defiance of the conditions that would otherwise reduce life to loss.

The verb “cheat” is central to understanding Henley’s vision. The speaker does not imagine that human beings can conquer “the fate beneath us and above.” Fate remains vast, enclosing, and apparently inescapable. The phrase “beneath us and above” suggests mortality in every direction: the grave below, cosmic or divine powers overhead, and the human self caught between them. This spatial imagery gives the stanza a nearly metaphysical scale. Yet the proposed answer is not despair. Love may “cheat” fate of “any laughter.” The modesty of “any” is moving. The speaker does not claim that love can remove suffering, secure immortality, or make the universe benevolent. Even a little laughter, however, is a theft from the dark. Joy becomes an act of resistance. This is a profoundly humane philosophy: happiness is valuable not because it is invulnerable, but because it briefly refuses the authority of despair.

Such a conception of love can be compared with the Victorian and post-Romantic tendency to find spiritual seriousness in fleeting experience. For some Romantic poets, the transience of beauty produces anguish because the ideal cannot be retained. For others, momentary intensity becomes a form of revelation. Henley’s poem belongs somewhere between these positions. It does not idealize beauty as an eternal realm beyond change, nor does it merely lament its disappearance. Instead, it urges the beloved to receive beauty as finite and therefore urgent. The moral weight of the poem comes from accepting limits rather than denying them. In philosophical terms, its outlook resembles an existential affirmation before existentialism became a formal literary movement: human beings face a world structured by time, suffering, and death, but they still possess the capacity to choose love, courage, and presence.

The final stanza gathers the poem’s motifs into a sequence of luminous yet unstable images: “The myrtle and the rose, the rose, / The sunshine and the swallow, / The dream that comes, the wish that goes, / The memories that follow!” Myrtle has long been associated with love, marriage, Venus, beauty, and evergreen vitality. In combination with the rose, it extends the poem’s erotic and ceremonial atmosphere. Yet the apparent fullness of these symbols is immediately set against the transient sunshine and the swallow. The swallow is a particularly resonant bird in lyric tradition: its arrival can signify spring, renewal, migration, and hope, but its flight also makes it an emblem of swift departure. Sunshine and swallow are both signs of life in motion. They cannot be possessed; they can only be witnessed.

The final pair of images, “The dream that comes, the wish that goes, / The memories that follow,” is perhaps the poem’s most concentrated statement of human temporal experience. A dream arrives unexpectedly, bearing promise or beauty. A wish departs, perhaps because it is fulfilled, abandoned, frustrated, or superseded. What remains is memory. Henley does not portray memory simply as consolation. It is the afterlife of experience, but it also confirms that experience is past. The exclamation at the close produces an emotional rush rather than a neatly resolved conclusion. The poem ends in accumulation: flower, light, bird, dream, wish, memory. This sequence feels like the mind looking back over a life’s fragments, aware that each lovely thing is already moving into recollection. The ending is poignant because it does not decide whether memory is a treasure or a wound. It is both.

Sound and syntax contribute strongly to the lyric’s emotional character. Henley repeatedly employs doubled words—“rose, the rose” and “foregone, foregone”—to create a sense of echo, insistence, and recurrence. These verbal returns enact the mind’s refusal to release what it values. The poem’s exclamations intensify its speech without making it melodramatic; they register a speaker whose thought is inseparable from feeling. Alliteration and consonantal texture reinforce key contrasts: the softness of “summer smiles” differs sharply from the harsher texture of “worm, regret” and “canker.” The frequent use of short, emphatic clauses gives the poem a proverbial authority, while the recurring direct address preserves intimacy. It has the quality of a song, but it is a song aware of silence, ending, and the inadequacy of language before loss.

There is also a subtle tension between possession and relinquishment throughout the poem. The speaker asks the beloved to “gather” the rose, an act that preserves the flower only by removing it from its living stem. To gather beauty is already, in a sense, to hasten its decline. Likewise, to make a memory of happiness is to acknowledge that the moment itself has passed. Henley does not attempt to solve this paradox. The poem knows that love cannot freeze time, that a gathered rose withers, and that even laughter is temporary. But it refuses the conclusion that impermanence makes beauty meaningless. On the contrary, the poem insists that impermanence makes response necessary. If nothing lasted, one might either despair or become more attentive; Henley chooses attention, action, and love.

The emotional impact of “O, gather me the rose” derives from this fusion of sweetness and severity. Its floral vocabulary and tender address might initially suggest a conventional love lyric, but the poem steadily reveals a darker philosophical landscape. Winter waits. Regret cankers. Time refuses to return. Fate surrounds the lovers, and darkness lies both “before and after.” Yet the poem is not defeated by these recognitions. Its ardor arises from them. The rose is worth gathering because it will fade; love is worth risking because it cannot be indefinitely postponed; laughter matters because fate cannot wholly account for it. Henley achieves a remarkable compression of emotional truth: the poem is at once an invitation, a warning, an elegy for missed chances, and a declaration of human resilience. Its enduring beauty lies in its refusal to sentimentalize either love or mortality. It asks us to feel the fragility of joy, and then, with grave tenderness, to choose joy anyway.