PoemoftheWeek

I couldn't take in the whole poem at once so I'll note the first stanza.

BEFORE I sigh my last gasp, let me breathe,
Great Love, some legacies ; I here bequeath
Mine eyes to Argus, if mine eyes can see ;
If they be blind, then, Love, I give them thee ;
My tongue to Fame ; to ambassadors mine ears ;
To women, or the sea, my tears ;
Thou, Love, hast taught me heretofore
By making me serve her who had twenty more,
That I should give to none, but such as had too much before.

1) 3 entities exists: I, Love, and the her

2) some legacies...huh? Maybe the I is deciding what part of the I that Love will inherit--which doesn't seem to be much.

3) Love has taught the I love through making(a sort of force) the I to serve the her(unconditionally?), who had twenty more of what? Twenty more demands in addition to the I as a servant? And ending the stanza with but such as had too much before brings up the question of before what? Probably a reference to the I as a servant to the her is already too much of the I that is being given in the name of learning love. Is the I questioning Love's method of love?

4) The only part of the I that Love inherits here is the I's eyes, but only if the I's eyes are blind. LOL at the reference that Love is inheriting blind eyes. This gives Love the opportunity to experience what Love has taught the I: love being unconditional when 'the her' need is involved. But what about the I's needs? Is a relationship being set up where the I has very little importance? Can love, defined in this way, keep together a relationship?

Nothing is being given to Love in this first stanza except a perspective for Love, to itself, experience. This experience being Love's own teachings.

I don’t think it’s as complicated as that. The legacies here are those things he bequeaths. The recipients have no use for any of the things he leaves to them. They already have more than enough. The woman has already had twenty lovers to serve her. Isn't Donne being a bit cheeky or perhaps tongue-in-cheeky?

I enjoy it more as philosophy - or even economics - than poetry, though you might say it works philosophically as only a poem can. It's wonderfully slippery - or it revels in the slipperiness of the ideas it's talking about, mostly love and giving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unnamable

The recipients have no use for any of the things he leaves to them. They already have more than enough.

---

Presumably, you're only talking about the first stanza. The very next is all about giving to people who don't have enough. (It's like some several centuries prescient dialectic between free market monetarism and socialism!) The tone is cheeky, at least at first, but the different contexts in which he places his themes make it seem like more than mischief. It gets quite tricky. I'll try to find time to comment more later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Presumably, you're only talking about the first stanza. The very next is all about giving to people who don't have enough.

---

Yes – I was responding to ktd222’s comments, which were about just the first stanza. As for the next stanza, I don’t think that the point is that they don’t have enough but that the recipients this time cannot accept his offerings – he is continuing his dig at the woman:

“Only to give to such as have an incapacity.”

There is no point in giving truth to those that live at court – their whole existence is based in deceit. Similarly, there is little point in giving pensiveness to buffoons.

The last three lines of each stanza explain the significance of his bequests.

Isn’t this simply an averagely witty (by Donne’s standards) attack on both the woman and Love with a few other targets thrown in to make his mates laugh? The last stanza is very bitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ktd222

2) some legacies...huh? Maybe the I is deciding what part of the I that Love will inherit--which doesn't seem to be much.

---

I don't think the poem aims to 'honour' the 'Love' with all these legacies but more to criticise her for her shortcomings. So there is no surprise that she doesn't get much from him.

Quote:

---

3) who had twenty more of what?

---

20 other lovers. The lady has already other lovers but insists that he should be his lover too hence teaching him not to give anyone but those who already have more than enough. 'Before'>Before he has given them those things.

Quote:

---

4) The only part of the I that Love inherits here is the I's eyes, but only if the I's eyes are blind.

---

Since in this stanza he is leaving things only to those who has already has more than enough, leaving his love 'blind eyes' means she is also blind, ie, to his love. She already has more than enough lovers and does not appreciate his love.

Even though the poem seems like a bitter piece addressed to his lover, I think it also does a very good job of giving away Donne's view of many others, especially in the later stanzas and there is more to this poem than laments of a neglected lover.

Unnamable,

Why don't you give my comments more thought and then respond properly. The things I noted do exist in the poem. You went on a long rampage about that Larkin poem, I'm sure there is more than you are noting here.

Quote:

---

20 other lovers.

---

Where does the word lover appear?

Quote:

---

I don't think the poem aims to 'honour' the 'Love' with all these legacies

---

I never said this. Get your facts straight.

Petrarch, you seem to have access to resources the rest of us can only dream of. Is the semi-colon in line 6 of the first stanza correct? All the online versions I’ve looked at have a semi-colon. Can you (or anyone else) tell me why it isn’t a colon? Each subsequent stanza has a colon at the end of the corresponding line and that makes more sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “blp”

I enjoy it more as philosophy - or even economics - than poetry, though you might say it works philosophically as only a poem can. It's wonderfully slippery - or it revels in the slipperiness of the ideas it's talking about, mostly love and giving.

(It's like some several centuries prescient dialectic between free market monetarism and socialism!)

---

Could you explain what you mean here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “ktd222”

Unnamable,
Why don't you give my comments more thought and then respond properly.

---

I gave them thought. Perhaps you should? What do you mean by ‘properly’? To be honest, I didn’t really understand a lot of what you said. There, I’ve set you up nicely for a damning retort. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “ktd222”

The things I noted do exist in the poem.

---

I was only responding to the first stanza, which is what you discussed. My follow up comments were in response to what blp wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “ktd222”

I'm sure there is more than you are noting here.

---

The best way to persuade everyone would be to demonstrate this, preferably with clarity.

And Scheherazade is right – he means 20 other lovers (or 20 others who have served her, to be precise) – it’s clearly implied.

It’s nice to see aggression similar to that for which I have a reputation. It’s not so nice to see it when the same level of informed observation doesn’t support it. Nevertheless, Mr. Bennet is always ready to encourage Mr. Collins. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by “Scheherazade”

Even though the poem seems like a bitter piece addressed to his lover, I think it also does a very good job of giving away Donne's view of many others, especially in the later stanzas and there is more to this poem than laments of a neglected lover.

---

Many others? :confused:
And yes, there is more to the poem than the laments of a neglected lover. There is wit, erudition, playfulness and so on. But I still believe he is bitter. In the final stanza he says he will die and thus put an end to himself, Love and the woman. I’ll say the same to you as I did to ktd222; the best way to persuade would be to show.

As for the blind bit – isn’t it primarily simply a reference to blind cupid and the idea that love is blind?

‘rampage’ – that did make me laugh.

Scher: "Since in this stanza he is leaving things only to those who has already has more than enough, leaving his love 'blind eyes' means she is also blind, ie, to his love. "

I think that "Love" is Eros, the god of love, who is blind.
"her" is the disdainful beloved one.

Eros (Love) is causing Donne (I) to love "her."

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Isn’t this simply an averagely witty (by Donne’s standards) attack on both the woman and Love with a few other targets thrown in to make his mates laugh? The last stanza is very bitter.

---

Spot on Unnamable, that's exactly how I read it. I enjoy reading the analyses of poetry here (and add a bit from time to time if I feel able) but I really think that a lot of you have gone over the top here, trying to dig out gold from a mountain when it's lying in plain sight in front of you all the time. Some poems really are as simple as they appear. This is one of them, IMHO. :nod:

Xamonas: "Some poems really are as simple as they appear."
I agree with you, at least in respect of the first five stanzas, but I think I've lost the plot in the last.

Unnamable: "In the final stanza he says he will die and thus put an end to himself, Love and the woman."

He does say that, but in what sense can he mean it?
She will not be perturbed, as she has twenty others to serve her (Stanza 1,) cannot receive his love (Sta 2,) despises it (Sta 3,) and prefers younger lovers (Sta 5.)
Cupid, doubtless, will continue to shoot his arrows.

So, is it only his world that he will undo by dying, and his love and perception of her beauties and graces?

.

Whifflingpin,

IMHO Donne's saying that her grace and beauty are of no use without someone to love her, himself being that someone. He is being a bit melodramatic at this point (and almost certainly with tongue firmly in cheek) . Read something more into it if you like, I'm not the sharpest critic and never claim to be, but that's all I see there.

I thought Donne was talking about Love's grace and beauty. I don't think he addresses "her" in any other line of the poem, and he addresses Love continually. Also, the imagery of unmined gold in a mountain and a sundial in a grave seems to fit because Love will be buried with him.

Xamonas: "Donne's saying that her grace and beauty are of no use without someone to love her, himself being that someone. He is being a bit melodramatic at this point (and almost certainly with tongue firmly in cheek) ."
OK, I can go with that - a rather more elegant "I'll kill myself and you'll be sorry"

Bluevictim: "I thought Donne was talking about Love's grace and beauty. I don't think he addresses "her" in any other line of the poem, and he addresses Love continually."
It is a bit of a jump, but I think it is her beauties and graces, not Love's. He addresses Love as "thou," but has switched to "you" for these lines. Hence my assumption that he has changed the person he's talking to.

.