“SPRING” AND OPPOSING VIEWS

The poem “Spring”, next to being a celebration of the coming of spring to the land, presents a dichotomy; the sets involved are the one containing natural elements and the one containing unnatural elements.^[1] Furthermore, these sets can be filled in two ways, depending on the way the work is read. In both cases, it suggests that man is different from nature. Since the poem is a short one, a simple surface reading will not suffice to see this dichotomy, it requires an analysis of the underlying structure.

The first stanza sets the tone by describing the joyous mood of flora and fauna. Birds and blossoms are described as they look back at the hardships borne during the winter. Moreover, the first line, by mentioning that spring comes “to toune” looks forward to the end of the second stanza, where man is first introduced. The second stanza, then, expands upon the festive mood to include things that are not alive, such as the moon, which shines radiantly, and streams, which glide silently. Near the end of the second stanza, in line 22, an exception to the general rejoicing enters the work. This exception has to do with humans, who find love unsatisfactory and are therefore not filled with bliss. The third stanza, finally, clarifies the discordance. Humans set their eyes on one target, leading to uncertainty when they are not sure of their conquest, and to disappointment if they fail to acquire their target.

What “Spring” presents in this way is a contrast between things natural and things unnatural. What is more, this contrast is twofold; first of all, the poem itself contains a dissimilarity. Nature is presented as a conscious whole, which rejoices in concert due to the arrival of spring and the departure of winter. The use of personifications is a means by which birds, plants, creeks and even the sun and the moon have been unified, this unification brings forward the single–minded devotion that they exhibit towards spring. Because of its different attitude towards spring and love, mankind feels and acts different from the rest of nature and is in this way depicted as an unnatural element. Mankind sets the bar high for itself by being so specific about a mate, because of its ambition it has sacrificed contact with the universal pleasure that all others share and has gained only sorrow.

When taken to a different level, however, it can be argued that mankind is illustrated as the natural element in a poem that deals largely with unnatural things. The personifications play a role in this reading as well as they identify a certain mood in the various natural elements present in the poem. Laying aside the impossibility of the sun and moon to consciously do anything and avoiding the discussion of whether animals and plants have a conscience, these elements are depicted as happy and content, excepting the humans in the poem. The real world, however, does not display this unanimous exultation; it is not unknown for animals to die when contesting for a mate and plants that stand in the continuous shade of a number of surrounding trees have a slim chance of survival. Humans, then, in “Spring” have a much more realistic view on love when compared to rest of the things named; they understand that they have to vie for the attentions of a mate, at the same time realising that there is a realistic chance of failure. Thus, this reading reverses the earlier proposal of the division between natural and unnatural in the poem.

The dual contrast in “Spring” between the natural and the unnatural springs from the way in which the various elements are described, due to the differing values attached to nature on the one side and to mankind on the other they are both placed in opposing sets; the precise character of those sets is then dependent on the way the poem is read. The disparity can be self–contained by the poem, suggesting that the perfect way in which nature is portrayed is balanced by the imperfect way in which human love is exposed. This gives human nature an unnatural appearance, due to its tendency to complicate matters, it is set aside from the parts that make nature, that display an undemanding point of view towards love. The contrast, on the other hand, can also go beyond the boundaries of the poem and compare the setting of the poem with the real world. In this reading it is mankind that has a rational view on its surroundings and nature that is put forward as unnatural since it refuses to see all there is. “Spring”, when read with an eye for multiple meanings, provides an example of the sometimes opposing explanations that can accompany a single text.

24 Oct. 2001

For questions/comments: E-mail me.