Practical Criticism: They Flee From Me

Here goes for my first attempt at practical criticism: analysis of a poem without prior knowledge of the author/context. I chose “They flee from me, that sometime did me seek”, which I’ve just found out was written by Sir Thomas Wyatt, on the simple basis that it was the first poem to come up when I typed “practical criticism poem” into Google; it was only afterwards I realised with trepidation how it centered around sex. I did the analysis/annotation part in my free period over about half an hour, and will now try to turn that into something more like an essay. Please do tell me what you think, or any different interpretations you have found.

They flee from me that sometime did me seek
With naked foot, stalking in my chamber.
I have seen them gentle, tame, and meek,
That now are wild and do not remember
That sometime they put themself in danger
To take bread at my hand; and now they range,
Busily seeking with a continual change.

Thanked be fortune it hath been otherwise
Twenty times better; but once in special,
In thin array after a pleasant guise,
When her loose gown from her shoulders did fall,
And she me caught in her arms long and small;
Therewithall sweetly did me kiss
And softly said, “Dear heart, how like you this?”

It was no dream: I lay broad waking.
But all is turned thorough my gentleness
Into a strange fashion of forsaking;
And I have leave to go of her goodness,
And she also, to use newfangleness.
But since that I so kindly am served
I would fain know what she hath deserved.

From the starting word, “they”, we are presented with ambiguity: about whom is the speaker referring? Reading just the first stanza, it appears “they” are creatures of some sort: “wild” and “tame” are words commonly linked to animals. As they “take bread at my head”, it seems as if they have become domesticated, for example, wild horses which have been broken in. In the light of the rest of the poem, it becomes clear with the references to “she” that the poet is describing women who have left him in the past. However, by preserving the uncertainty throughout the stanza, the poet creates a particularly strong image for gender relations.

The stanza as a whole seems to have a pensive, perplexed tone. This is achieved partly by time phrases such as “sometime” and the phrase “I have seen them” which distance the poet from his memories, so he seems confused rather than angry. The enjambment between “remember” and “that sometime…” adds to the effect as the lengthy pause mimics the speaker trailing off in recollection.

The poet makes effective use of contrast in this stanza, which shows both the difference between “they” and “me” and their changing relationship. When they were in a relationship, the women were “tame”, subservient to their partner, but without one they are “wild”. The poet shows his disapproval of the women’s behavior through the connotations of “wild” as dangerous and reckless. He reinforces this by linking “tame” to “gentle” and “meek”: both words replete with suggestions of virtue. Thus the poet suggests women should be submissive, mere prey for the men to catch. However, “they” are also described as “stalking” the poet, which conversely gives a sense of them as predators. We wonder: are they the hunters or the hunted? A solution to this might be found in the reference to “my chamber”: the second stanza seems to indicate that, as far as sexual relations are concerned, women are in control. Furthermore, that it is through gaining this power that they have the ability to escape the relationship. We’d expect sex to be the ultimate moment of togetherness for the couple: instead it precipitates their separation. So while the hunter/hunted dynamic would lead us to believe that those who “flee” are powerless while those who “seek” are powerful, on closer examination the opposite is the case.

The phrases “flee from me” and “did me seek” are linked together by the common “ee” sounds, and the similarity in this respect heightens the effect of the disparity in their meaning: we sense the poet’s confusion that such a complete change has taken place, despite the fact that the people themselves remain the same. There is a similar instance of assonance towards the end of the stanza. The poem follows a tight ABABBCC rhyme scheme, but here “danger”, “range” and “change” are linked with internal rhyme. This is effective in creating an undercurrent of threat in the last clause as the reader is forced to question whether the women are still in “danger”, and they are only “busily seeking” a “change” in a vain effort to escape this. Alternately, it could be that “continual change” is a reference to a wider context where gender roles are being redefined.
In the rest of the poem, the focus lies on a particular woman. The second stanza details an erotic encounter between the speaker and the mysterious “she”. This is introduced with the phrase “thanked be fortune, it hath been otherwise/ twenty times better”, which I found to have the most confusing syntax in poem. Initially, it seemed as if the poet was saying that the scene outlined immediately after was not sexually satisfying: an interpretation which seemed to jar with the clear erotic tone. However it seems more likely that he is instead communicating that while this particular scene was not, objectively, the ‘best’, it had a poignancy which makes it stick in the speaker’s mind: it is “special”. “Twenty times” could also be taken to mean ‘on twenty different occasions’, or ‘twenty times more pleasurable’; I believe the former fits better with my interpretation.

The poet uses caesura particularly effectively in this section. The shortness of the clause “but once” immediately draws the reader’s focus to the scene to be recounted and each subsequent clause lengthens, which gathers tension towards “when her loose gown... did fall”. The enjambment after “fall” similarly adds to the suspense before “and she caught me in her arms long and small”, where the poet uses monosyllabic words to show this is the climax of the scene. The use of the word “caught” links back to the issues of power and hunting which were raised in the first stanza - except here it is the woman who entraps and assumes authority over the male, rather than visa versa.

Sibilance towards the end of the stanza intensifies the effect of words such as “softly said” and “sweetly”, by the giving the section a slow and gentle tone; it thereby adds to our impression that the “kiss” and “this” (the scene entire) are similarly sweet. Initially therefore the question (“dear heart, how like you this?”) seems playful and inviting, but when linked to the third stanza it also carries a suggestion of hostility. This is because towards the end of the last stanza the speaker uses a series of sarcastically sweet phrases to emphasise his anger at his treatment: “I have leave to go of her goodness”. The line seems to mock the woman by adopting what appears to be her interpretation of affairs: clearly the speaker himself does not regard her as good any longer. Perhaps therefore the last line of the second stanza forebodes ? the eventual breakup by suggesting raising the question prematurely in the reader’s mind of whether the speaker remains contented in the relationship: paving the way for a answer in the negative.

The last stanza opens particularly bluntly: “It was no dream: I lay broad waking”. This mirrors the behaviour of the reader as up until now the poem’s enigmatic tone has given us a confused, dream-like lack of focus, but perhaps now we too will awake and have some answers revealed to us. The colon adds emphasis as both sections stand entire, without the interference of a conjunction.

Two conflicting interpretations seem to present themselves for this stanza. The first we have already touched upon: that the speaker is angry and sarcastic. Thus the word “newfangleness” suggests his disdain for the fact the woman must always seek for novelty, without properly valuing what she has or forming any lasting relationship. “But since I am so kindly served” is sarcastic, as is clear when ‘kindly’ is read with particular emphasis. The result of this is that the last line “I would fain know what she hath deserved” becomes ominous as we are forced to wonder if the speaker is enacting the revenge which we assume he believes she now deserves.

However, the last line can also be read as if the speaker, hurt and bewildered, is asking himself how he could have kept this woman he loved; whether he did the best he could for her; why all women leave him likewise confused and in pain. Thus “goodness” can carry its original meaning as he still bemoans her loss. This gives the lines a sense of powerlessness which fits with the change the speaker has undergone since the start of the poem from the figure of authority to the one who suffers from the actions of others. Also, we can believe that the speaker has the “gentleness” he claims; whereas were he angry, this would clearly not be the case. Under the first interpretation therefore the reader is made to question if “gentleness” if supposed to have a similarly sarcastic tone to “goodness”, which seems unlikely. Thus it perhaps makes more sense for neither word to be taken as sarcastic. The use of the word “strange” also seems to show a sense of perplexity on the part of the speaker.

Personally, I prefer the second interpretation as it ties in better with the tone of the first stanza which is very much one of confusion and impotence. However, there are limitations and strengths with both and what makes the section so effective is the ambiguity it maintains.

Indeed, this ambiguity is key to understanding the poem as a whole. Through the poet's use of contrast; the double meaning both of specific phrases and larger sections; and the uncertainty that pervades the poem's entirety, we are presented with the issue of power and subservience in gender relations which takes a wider relevance than that of the poet's personal recollections on a woman who has rejected him in the past.