The poet defends his constant devotion against the charge that it amounts to idolatry, arguing that his love, while absolute, is directed toward a worthy object.
The accusation that love has become excessive, worship of a mortal instead of the divine. The poet reframes it as justified if the beloved's worth is supreme.
Repeated throughout the sonnet, suggesting totality and the all-consuming nature of proper devotion.
Sonnet 105 deliberately engages with theological and religious concerns. By this point in the sequence, the intensity of the poet's praise has implicitly raised accusations of heresy: surely such absolute devotion amounts to idolatry? The poet's defense is radical and unapologetic: the beloved is worthy of absolute devotion, making that devotion justified rather than idolatrous. This elevates the beloved from mortal human to quasi-divine status, a transformation latent throughout the sequence but here made theologically explicit.
The poem identifies the beloved as 'kind, fair, and true'—three qualities forming a trinity of perfection that justifies complete devotion. The threefold invocation suggests an almost liturgical pattern, transforming mere praise into something approaching prayer. The sonnet thus enacts the very thing it defends: it uses religious language and structure to sanctify the beloved. This suggests the line between legitimate love and idolatry is not a moral boundary but a question of the object's actual merit.
Defending an obsessive fandom to someone who questions it, by arguing the celebrity/creator genuinely deserves the devotion. The accusation of idolatry stings precisely because the poet knows he's at the edge of acceptable devotion.