“Love seeketh not Itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care;
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hell’s despir.”
So sang a little Clod of Clay,
Trodden with the cattle’s feet
But a Pebble of the brook,
Warbled out these metres meet:
“Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to its delight,
Joys in another’s loss of ease,
And Builds a Hell in a Heaven’s despite.”
William Blake (1757-1827)
The analysis of the idea of love in “The Clod and the Pebble” The idea of love in this poem, which is probably difficult for readers to find out at first but able to be realised at length, ought to be selfish aspect. The clue was rationally unclear in the first reading, but actually there is a key word in the 7th line which genuinely plays the most important role in the whole poem—“But”. The comparison between “the clod” and “the pebble” is equally seen, and each of the two symbols ought to respectively interpret contrasting definitions of love: the former six lines, based on the clod, should regard love as generous and merciful while the latter six lines, belonging to the pebble, might take love as selfish, or even think of it just as a function to delight oneself. As for the evidence from each, we can observe in the beginning of “the clod”: in the first two lines say love has never been self-centric, and the 3rd to 6th lines have further definition that love not merely ignores itself but builds a Heaven to ease other’s despair, and even let itself “Trodden with the cattle’s feet”. On the other hand, the characters of “the pebble” could also be known: love only pleases itself and even goes along with another in the 9th and 10th lines, and still even feels joyful when another loses ease an establishes a Hell in the last two lines(, which are described with a little irony sense of gloating over). Regardless of the differences between “the clod” and “the pebble” which have been demonstrated in the 2nd paragraph, the usage of “But” in the 7th line, a typical concessionary rhetoric skill, is what readers should pay attention to. Normally speaking, when we utilise concessionary structures such as “Sa(statement a) but Sb”, “Sb (al)though Sa”, and the like, the stance of Sa is usually weaker than Sb, or even has to be relatively given up or sacrificed. In this way, if we focus back on this poem, it could be understood that no matter how much love is able to please, ease and take care of another, it stil thinks of itself the first and the most. Ultimately ad as the analysis has narrated above, not just the characters of “the clod” and “the pebble” but also the idea of love in this poem are possibly clearly understandable. And also it might be obtained that the point of view about love should be more on “the pebble”, the selfish symbol, than on “the clod”, the merciful representative.
留言列表
