John Donne: life, works, and literary significance

¶ … 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 uses words to conflate opposites He uses the concept of the flea as a symbol of their combined love. He implies that in killing the flea his lover will in fact be killing the flea as well as the two lovers.

In lines 11 -- 18 of the stanza the poet continues the conceit to demonstrate that their blood is already intermingled in the flea and therefore, by implication, they are "more than married" (line 11). Therefore, he stresses that there should be no obstacle to their physical union. This connection between the flea and their blood is cleverly manipulated so that the refusal to have intercourse is described as being tantamount to a form of murder. The convolutions of meaning related to the symbol of the flea and the intermingling of blood results in a number of conceits. The flea becomes the lovers as well as their marriage bed and temple. The poem also implies that killing the flea will therefore be a form of sacrilege. The play on words is important in the conveyance of his central argument here. In line nineteen he uses the word "sacrilege" to describe the death of the flea. On the one hand this is obviously absurd to place the life of flea on the same level as the meaning and import of "sacrilege." However this absurdity is the poet's technique of convincing his lover to give in to him. It is just as obvious that a life of a flea cannot be that important and this therefore means that his lover should realize that refusing his advances is absurd. The poet also plays with the convention in love poetry that by not yielding to him she will be in a sense 'kill' him.

In the third stanza the argument is again rigorously pursued with no pause. Here the poet continues to press for his lover's permission and acquiescence on the grounds that her fears and qualms about intercourse are unfounded. When his lover kills the flea he asks the question:

Wherein could this flea guilty be,

He immediately answers this question with the obvious answer

Except in that drop which it suck'd from thee?