- Books, Literature, and Writing»
- Poems & Poetry
William Blake's "A Poison Tree"
Portrait of William Blake
A Poison Tree
I was angry with my friend;
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.
And I water'd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears:
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.
And it grew both day and night.
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine.
And into my garden stole,
When the night had veil'd the pole;
In the morning glad I see;
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.
Reading of Blake's "A Poison Tree"
William Blake's didactic poem becomes unworkable despite the potentially useful advice of talking with one's enemies.
From his Songs of Experience, William Blake's "A Poison Tree" consists of four quatrains, each with the rime-scheme, AABB. As with most of Blake's efforts, "A Poison Tree" has its charm, despite its problematic use of metaphor.
(Please note: The incorrect spelling, "rhyme," was erroneously introduced into English by Dr. Samuel Johnson. For my explanation for using only the correct form, please see "Rime vs Rhyme: An Unfortunate Error.")
First Quatrain: "I was angry with my friend"
The first quatrain finds the speaker explaining that he experienced a disagreement with a "friend," which made him "angry." He confided his anger over the disagreement to the friend, and all was well.
However, the speaker then experienced a disagreement accompanied with anger with what he calls a "foe." The negative attitude at the outset toward this latter individual suggests that even if the speaker had told his foe about his anger, that emotion would not have dissuaded the foe of remaining an enemy.
It is likely that the speaker and his foe were simply not close enough to come to an amicable understanding, regardless of how much talking they would engage in. It is also likely therefore that even if they had attempted to converse on the subject they would have remained enemies. So the "wrath" toward his enemy grew.
Second Quatrain: "And I watered it in fears"
In the second quatrain, the speaker attempts to shed light on the growth of his ire toward his enemy. His hatred of his enemy grew because he fostered it in his mind, and he hid it behind a smiling face and deceitful interaction with the enemy.
Third Quatrain: "And it grew both day and night"
The third quatrain finds the speaker consumed with that fostered hatred of his enemy. He offers a drama of hatred and metaphorically likens it to a "poison tree" that produces a bright, shiny fruit that looks appetizing.
When his foe observes the bright, shiny fruit that belongs to the speaker, he fails to understand the poisonous nature of that "fruit." He falls for the smiling face and deceptive demeanor of the speaker. The speaker's foe is led to believe the speaker likes him.
Fourth Quatrain: "And into my garden stole"
Finally, the foe makes his way into the speaker's garden, where he apparently eats the poison fruit. In the morning, the speaker discovers a dead enemy beneath his tree. The speaker appears to celebrate the foe's death. But how exactly did the foe die?
The first issue, as already mentioned, is that the speaker and the foe were originally not on friendly terms. That status inserts into the equation a vast difference between the friend with whom me could remain amicable and the foe with whom he likely could not.
Despite this important difference, the speaker suggests that talking things out with this already avowed enemy would have assuaged the final outcome. Sometimes foes remain foes regarding of the good intensions of the parties to change that status.
It is quite possible that a discussion of confiding this anger to his foe might have exacerbated the enmity between them. This fact makes the attempt to instruct others in moral behavior come across as naïve, shallow, and simply unworkable in a poem.
The second issue is the failure as metaphor of the poison tree. The speaker's wrath is dramatically and metaphorically rendered as the poison tree, which would be growing in the garden of the speaker's mind.
Thus the suggestion is that the foe entered the speaker's mind, ate from the poisoned fruit and died. This metaphor does not work. If stealing into the speaker's mind means that the foe could see that the speaker hated him immensely, how does that necessarily kill the foe?
The metaphor of a poison tree in the mind killing someone is nonsensical, unless that poison tree caused the speaker to commit homicide. And one would naturally have to be unreasonable to render such information in a poem.
It must be out of naïveté or carelessness that such a metaphor would be used in such a nonsensical and unworkable way. Despite the charm of many of Blake's efforts, he did often fall victim to such naïveté and carelessness in his poems.
© 2016 Linda Sue Grimes