Flea This Paradoxical and Provocative Poem by Term Paper

Flea

This paradoxical and provocative poem by John Donne illustrates a number of the central characteristics of Metaphysical poetry. This paper will attempt to elucidate the paradoxical elements of the poem through a close reading of the text. The poem is essentially argumentative and displays a number of conceits or paradoxical comparisons. The poet uses words and meanings in an unconventional and often startling sense to convince his lover to make love with him.

The poem compares the image of a flea to love and physical union. The entire poem is a sustained argument to convince the protagonist's lover of the validity of this comparison. The image of the flea is used to spur or encourage the loved one into agreeing to the unification of their blood through intercourse. It is also significant to note in this regard that during the Renaissance it was believed that in the act of coition blood was passed between the two people concerned.

The central argument is clearly stated in the first two lines of the poem. This argument will flow throughout the three stanzas. The poet or protagonist states empathically ("Mark") the central conceit of the poem in the comparison of the flea to his intended relationship with his lover.

MARK but this flea, and mark in this,

How little that which thou deniest me is;

Thee second line above points to the intent of the protagonist. He uses the idea of a "flea bite" to suggest that their making love will have little harmful or negative effect on his lover. This is intended to reassure and persuade his intended lover that the intended action of coitus is as natural and inconsequential as a flea bite. He is using the image and the meaning of the word 'flea' to convey another paradoxical interpretation by comparing the fact of the flea bite and consequent intermingling of their blood to their sexual union.It suck'd me first, and now sucks thee,

And in this flea our two bloods mingled be.

Thou know'st that this cannot be said

A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead;

In the above lines the argument is continued to suggest that the flea bite cannot be considered a sin or shameful act. The word "mingled" for example clearly refers to their act of love. At the same time and in an outwardly paradoxical sense the word "mingled" also refers to the combination of their blood in the body of the flea. Therefore, through the use of comparison, the poet conveys a sense of paradox that seems to be logical

His main device of argument is comparison and if the act of love can be compared to a flea bite then it follows logically that it cannot be of any shameful or sinful consequence. This is a perfect example of the use of rational argument to synthetically link disparate elements.

The logic of this conceit or comparison is expanded further in the second stanza. Here we see how the logic of the commingling of their blood through the flea used as a metaphor and rationale for their physical union.

This flea is you and I

This is a good example of paradox in that flea, through the intermingling of their blood, becomes both the two lovers. The protagonist is attempting to convince his prospective lover that it is absurd to deny their love-making. This argument and apparent paradox is continued in the lines

And sacrilege, three sins in killing three.

Again the poet….....