William Blake's "A Poison Tree" makes a didactic but unworkable statement about the efficacy of talking out one's difficulties with 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.
First Quatrain: “I was angry with my friend”
In the first quatrain, the speaker explains that he had had a disagreement with “his friend,” and he had felt anger toward this friend, but he told his friend about his feelings and that ended the negative attitude toward the friend.
But then he had a disagreement with another person who was not his friend; as a matter of fact, this person was his “foe,” his enemy. No doubt, because he and his foe were not close enough to have a heart-to-heart discussion, the speaker did not tell his enemy of his anger. Because he did not talk out his wrath with the enemy, the “wrath did grow.”
Second Quatrain: “And I watered it in fears”
In the second quatrain, the speaker merely tries to elucidate how his wrath toward the enemy grew: he watered it with “fears” and “tears,” he covered it up in “smiles” and “wiles.”
Third Quatrain: “And it grew both day and night”
The third quatrain emphasizes how consumed the speaker became with his growing hatred of his foe. The speaker dramatizes his anger by metaphorically growing it into a poison tree that sprouts a bright, shiny poison apple. His foe sees this apple and knows that it belongs to the speaker; although, the poor foe does not realize that the apple is poison. Exactly what this apple is in nature is unclear: it may be the speaker’s smile or general behavior toward the foe.
Fourth Quatrain: “And into my garden stole”
Finally, the foe steals into the speaker’s garden, apparently eats the poison apple, and in the morning, the speaker discovers the foe dead beneath his tree. The speaker is glad to find the foe dead. But how exactly did he kill the foe?
Commentary: Two Problems
One problem here is that the speaker has set up the vast difference between his friend and his foe, yet in the end we wants readers to believe that if he had discussed his anger with the foe, the outcome would have been different, but how can that necessarily be? Because the foe is a foe, it is quite possible that if the speaker had expressed his anger, the foe’s reaction might still have triggered his wrath to grow. This possibility negates the impact of his attempt to instruct in moral behavior.
Another problem is the unworkability of the metaphor of the poison tree: the speaker’s wrath is the poison tree, but then the poison tree would be growing in the garden of the speaker’s mind. Without additional information about what actually happened, that the foe “stole” into the speaker’s mind and was killed there by the poison apple of wrath remains nonsensical.
The copyright of the article Willilam Blake’s ‘A Poison Tree’ in British Poetry is owned by Linda Sue Grimes. Permission to republish Willilam Blake’s ‘A Poison Tree’ in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
You apparently fail to understand the poem - your downfall.
May 4, 2008 5:33 PM
Guest :
Hello Linda I was very interested to read your commentary. I was
following up A Poison Tree because it resembles the teachings derived over
centuries from Leviticus 19:17 (the Old Testament): rabbinical commentaries
on that verse focus on the duty to speak to someone who has 'sinned'
against you and say that the person who does not do so also bears
responsibility for the situation. We are all 'guardians of each others'
souls'. My understanding of the interpretation is that people are never
100% enemies, there is usually room to shift things a bit. By talking
'tenderly' to that person (that's the recommendation) one can change the
situation from hatred to at least tolerance and maybe even more...The
commentaries also add that it is a difficult thing to do, to address one's
enemy lovingly, but it is an 'absolute requirement'.
Scary,
isn't it.
Suzannah
Jul 2, 2009 8:44 AM
Guest :
The idea is not nonsensical to most people, but you do have your right to
opinion I guess.
Jul 3, 2009 6:06 AM
Linda Sue Grimes :
What these commenters, including Suzannah who at least has the courage to
append a first name, fail to understand is that the commentary on the poem
is not attacking the idea that it is efficacious to talk out your problems
with those with whom you disagree. Discounting major philosophical
disagreements that cannot be reconciled, it is a given in the mature adult
world that working out minor grievances is always a good thing. And it
appears that Blake’s discourse intends to focus on the minor disagreement
not major irreconcilable types, although that is not definite.
However, my article focuses on the problem with the poem’s execution not
the correctness of its advice:
Apple = honey coated poisonous
thoughts Garden = speaker’s mind
Foe enters mind, eats
apple, dies.
How did the foe get into the speaker’s mind without
the speaker knowing? How did the poisonous thoughts kill the foe?
The speaker is glad that his foes is “outstretched beneath the
tree”—so is the speaker really even trying to give the advice that it is
better to talk out your problems?
Because of these
incongruities, the poem is flawed and nonsensical.
Jul 29, 2009 10:33 AM
Guest :
The poem is not nonsensical. However, the writer misses the crucial
allusion to the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Do some
research on traditional accounts of the Fall and the rivalry between God
and Satan and then think about this poem again (tree of knowledge,
forbidden fruit). Blake was iconoclastic when it came to religion (see
other poems from The Songs of Experience, from which "Poison
Tree" is taken). Or take the time to read Blake's prose "The
Marriage of Heaven and Hell."
You're right that this poem
is a short tract on conflict resolution, but it's important to note just
what conflict is really being discussed (a religious/philsophical one
between God and Satan/Good and Evil). Given this reading, the real impact
of the poem is that Blake is implying God made the wrong choice in his
handling of Satan. Powerful stuff!
