Help with poem please!

[garbageacc3]

Hello,

I need help analyzing 2 lines from this poem

184. Elizabeth Childers


DUST of my dust,
And dust with my dust,
O, child who died as you entered the world,
Dead with my death!
Not knowing Breath, though you tried so hard, 5
With a heart that beat when you lived with me,
And stopped when you left me for Life.
It is well, my child. For you never traveled
The long, long way that begins with school days,
When little fingers blur under the tears 10
That fall on the crooked letters.
And the earliest wound, when a little mate
Leaves you alone for another;
And sickness, and the face of Fear by the bed;
The death of a father or mother; 15
Or shame for them, or poverty;
The maiden sorrow of school days ended;
And eyeless Nature that makes you drink
From the cup of Love, though you know it’s poisoned;
To whom would your flower-face have been lifted? 20
Botanist, weakling? Cry of what blood to yours?—
Pure or foul, for it makes no matter,
It’s blood that calls to our blood.
And then your children—oh, what might they be?
And what your sorrow? Child! Child! 25
Death is better than Life!


What do you think is the meaning of:

"To whom would your flower-faced have been lifted?
Botanist, weakling? Cry of what blood to yours?"

Thanks

[barbara0207]

I think the lines refer to the mate/spouse the child would have had . The metaphor of the flower is connected with the "Botanist". That seems to be someone who really knows how to deal with the flower and who cares for it lovingly, knows what it needs etc. The "weakling" may not be able to look after the flower very well. Seems to be in contrast to the botanist. The metonymy "blood" stands for the personalities of the child and his/her mate. What kind of personality would have appealed ("cry") to the child?

Of course I may be mistaken, but that's how I understand the lines.

[garbageacc3]

thats in interesting view

i'm really only supposed to analyze this part:

And eyeless Nature that makes you drink
From the cup of Love, though you know it’s poisoned;
To whom would your flower-face have been lifted? 20
Botanist, weakling? Cry of what blood to yours?—
Pure or foul, for it makes no matter,
It’s blood that calls to our blood.

and relate it to a novel

how i interpreted is that the "eyeless nature" is your instincts and how one can't fight one's biology type of way

from the cup of love, though you know its poisoned

to me, means that whatever happens, you'd follow the unstoppable force of love, even if its forbidden (such as homosexual love in the 1950s, incest, etc...) and rejected by society.

with your help barbara0207, i think interpreted

To whom would your flower-face have been lifted?

as who would make the innocent child happy (to me, flower face gives me a image of innocence and lifted seems to apply to ones happiness).

then:

Botanist, weakling? Cry of what blood to yours?

i agree with you that the botanist refers to the child's caretaker or someone who understands the child (good job linking that). But does that mean the weakling refers to the child? is it implying the child is helpless?

is it saying, "who will care for you, who will love you, who will understand you"?

the "cry of what blood to yours?" to me imply, "who will love you or, who is compatible with your personality,character, etc.."

then

Pure or foul, for it makes no matter,
It’s blood that calls to our blood.

to me just seems to reinforce the fact that no matter what personality the other person has, if its THE ONE, then no matter whether his/her personality matches yours, even if s/he will hurt you, or cause you pain, you will be drawn to him/her no matter what.



If anyones got any other interpretations suggestions, it would be great to hear your POV.


(though i'm trying to relate this to an essay i'm supposed to write about "The Age of Cities" about an innocent/naive closet homosexual who's future outcome is bleak either way as if he follows his homosexual nature, he will be ostracized by his small town community (this is the 1950s) or if he chooses to repress his real nature, he will forever feel unhappy inside)

THANKS

[MaryLupin]

Reading the particular section of the poem, I see that the sentence that includes the section you need to interpret begins with:


And the earliest wound,

This means that all the clauses after that in the sentence need to be read being related to "the earliest wound"

So


when a little mate
Leaves you alone for another;

is an "earliest wound" and so are


And sickness, and the face of Fear by the bed;

The death of a father or mother;

Or shame for them, or poverty;

The maiden sorrow of school days ended;

Therefore


And eyeless Nature that makes you drink
From the cup of Love, though you know it’s poisoned;

must also be an "earliest wound." So "eyeless"...I take that to mean blind Nature, that is being led by something with no vision, no foresight. Given that this is about wounds it would seem that this Nature is something that will cause pain and not joy, despite drinking from "the cup of Love." The fact that Love is capitalized seems to indicate that it is a person, or some divine-like entity (like Eros). You fall in love because your body is designed to do that. Your mind simply goes along for the ride: you know that love hurts (i.e. poisoned) but you cannot help yourself.

The next question is:


To whom would your flower-face have been lifted?


It is a real question I think. The parent of the dead child is asking 'In this world of pain, who would you have gravitated toward? What manner of painful love would you have fallen into as you grew?'

Then the parent suggests some possibilities for the "poisoned cup"


Botanist, weakling?


Given that the basic attitude of the poem toward love is that it is painful, I doubt that the botanist is a purely caring image. Botanists, after all, pick flowers, rend them to study their parts. Botanists act as if plants are objects over which they have the power and right to end, change or start lives.

Weakling is interesting. Given the basic stance of the poem, and the image of plant life, it seems to me that it might be useful to look at the gardening practice of pulling the weakling plants (its called thinning) so that the more robust plants can thrive. Since the child is dead and this is why the question of "what would your life have been like" is possible, it might be read as the parent intruding on the imagined life of the child - the weakling is the child who has been "thinned" by what ever killed it. It could, at the same time, be a reference to another kind of poisoned love, (unlike the "botanist" type who treat others as objects that can be manipulated) those who we must carry. Those too weak to help us, to act as a true partner. Like a leech or a vampiric plant (one that sucks on the life force of another eventually killing the host.) (Actually, this is a common terror of mothers-usually short-lived] who recognize they are carrying a foreign being inside their body).

Based on this reading the rest of it


Cry of what blood to yours?—
Pure or foul, for it makes no matter,
It’s blood that calls to our blood.
And then your children—oh, what might they be?
And what your sorrow? Child! Child!
Death is better than Life!


is exactly what it says.

Who would have responded to you, my dead child?-
Would they have been good for you are would they have been bad for you?
It doesn't matter now.
Really the people who would have responded to you and to whom you would have responded in return are the same people that we, your parents, attract.
And what would your children have been like?
How much sorrow would you have felt in their pain?
Child! Death is better than Life!

Bottom line...a parent enormously grieved at the loss of a child trying desperately to find a way of easing the pain she/he is feeling by saying, "it is better this way."