Poem analysis

by: Rachel

Fulton“LOVE’S DEITY”By: John Donne

“I long to talk with some old lover’s ghost

Who died before the god of love was born.

I cannot think that he who then loved most

Sunk so low as to love one which did scorn.

But since this god produced a destiny,

And that vice-nature, custom, lets it be,

I must love her that loves not me.”

Summary: The speaker wants to talk to someone who has loved

before the god of love Cupid was born. He cannot understand

why the lover would love someone that did not love him back.

The speaker is upset that it is now the norm to love someone

who does not feel the same way.

STANZA 1

“Sure, they which made him god meant not so much,

Nor he in his young godhead practiced it.

But when an even flame two hearts did touch,

His office was indulgently to fit

Actives to passives. Correspondency

Only his subject was. It cannot be

Love till I love her that loves me.”

Summary: Cupid formerly represented mutual love. The people

nor Cupid meant to turn love into what it has become - the

pursuit of the unattainable. The speaker professes that he

disagrees and that mutual love is the only love.

STANZA 2

“But every modern god will now extend

His vast prerogative as far as Jove.

To rage, to lust, to write to, to commend,

All is the purlieu of the god of love.

Oh, were we wakened by this tyranny

To ungod this child again, it could not be

I should love her, who loves not me.

Summary: The speaker emphasizes that all the modern gods of today are trying to influence as many people as Jove, the king of the Roman gods, had power over. The speaker does not want this convoluted view of love to come back again and again advocated the impossibility of love that is not mutual.

STANZA 3

“Rebel and atheist too, why murmur I,

As though I felt the worst that Love could do?

Love might make me leave loving, or might try

A deeper plague, to make her love me too,

Which, since she loves before, I am loath to see.

Falsehood is worse than hate, and that must be,

If she whom I love should love me .”

Summary: The speaker claims that Love could do two even worse things to him: Let the love die between he and his lover because the love is not mutual or make the lover love him back even though the feelings are not sincere. The speaker believes that this would be worse that to have him hate his lover, and ultimately decides that true love is mutual love.

STANZA 4

Mythology imagery:

“god of love” (l.2,18)

“god” (l.5,8)

“godhead” (l.9)

“modern god” (l.15)

“Jove” (l.16)

“ungod” (l.20)

Uses this imagery to emphasize his powerlessness

The gods are controlling and facilitating this distorted view of love

that the ideal is to pursue someone that is unattainable

Mentions Jove who was the king of the Roman gods to demonstrate

the far-reaching power that the new view of love has gained

ANNOTATION

Angry/melancholy diction

“died” (l.2)

“sunk so low” (l.4)

“scorn” (l.4)

“vice-nature” (l.6)

“to rage, to lust” (l.17)

“tyranny” (l.19)

“rebel and atheist” (l.22)

“deeper plague” (l.25)

“hate” (l.27)

Purpose is to underscore the speaker’s unhappiness that love is no longer

viewed as mutual love but that the ideal is chasing the unattainable

Interesting that there is no blatant melancholy diction in Stanza 2 when

he talks about mutual love thus reiterating his advocacy for mutual love

ANNOTATION (CONT.)

Inverted sentence structure

“But even when an even flame two hearts did touch” (l.10)

“Correspondency/ Only his subject was” (ll.12-13)

“Sure, they which made him god meant not so much” (l.8)

“why murmur I/ As though I felt the worst that Love could do?” (ll.22 -

23)

“I must lover her that loves not me” (l.7)

Backwardness of the lines could mirror the backward view of love

that love’s goal is not to be mutual, but rather its goal is to drive one

lover to chase the unattainable one

ANNOTATION (CONT.)

Repetition:

Repeats final line of each stanza in a slightly altered way

Precedes each final line with an assertion with a being verb

“lets it be” (l.6)

“It cannot be” (l.13)

“It could not be” (l.20)

“that must be” (l.27)

He asserts a slightly different idea each time he repeats these lines

His first stanza stresses that this new way of viewing love makes him love someone that does not love him back

His second stanza suggests that it is impossible to have any other love but mutual love

His third stanza expresses his disappointment in his growing realization that mutual love is a far-gone concept

His fourth stanza cedes to the fact that love of the unattainable is a form of true love as well

These differences reflect his progression in admitting that loving someone who does not love back is possible and can be true

ANNOTATION (CONT.)

Contrasts

“Correspondency” (l.12) vs. “Tyranny” (l.19)

ANNOTATION (CONT.)