1. Poem analysis
by: Rachel
“LOVE’S DEITY” Fulton
By: John Donne

2. STANZA 1
“I long to talk with some old lover’s ghost
Who died before the god of love was born.
I cannot think that he who then loved most
Sunk so low as to love one which did scorn.
But since this god produced a destiny,
And that vice-nature, custom, lets it be,
I must love her that loves not me.”
Summary: The speaker wants to talk to someone who has loved
before the god of love Cupid was born. He cannot understand
why the lover would love someone that did not love him back.
The speaker is upset that it is now the norm to love someone
who does not feel the same way.

3. STANZA 2
“Sure, they which made him god meant not so much,
Nor he in his young godhead practiced it.
But when an even flame two hearts did touch,
His of fice was indulgently to fit
Actives to passives. Correspondency
Only his subject was. It cannot be
Love till I love her that loves me.”
Summary: Cupid formerly represented mutual love. The people
nor Cupid meant to turn love into what it has become - the
pursuit of the unattainable. The speaker professes that he
disagrees and that mutual love is the only love.

4. STANZA 3
“But every modern god will now extend
His vast prerogative as far as Jove.
To rage, to lust, to write to, to commend,
All is the purlieu of the god of love.
Oh, were we wakened by this tyranny
To ungod this child again, it could not be
I should love her, who loves not me .
Summary: The speaker emphasizes that all the modern gods of
today are trying to influence as many people as Jove, the king
of the Roman gods, had power over. The speaker does not want
this convoluted view of love to come back again and again
advocated the impossibility of love that is not mutual.

5. STANZA 4
“Rebel and atheist too, why murmur I,
As though I felt the worst that Love could do?
Love might make me leave loving, or might try
A deeper plague, to make her love me too,
Which, since she loves before, I am loath to see.
Falsehood is worse than hate, and that must be,
If she whom I love should love me.”
Summary: The speaker claims that Love could do two even
worse things to him: Let the love die between he and his lover
because the love is not mutual or make the lover love him back
even though the feelings are not sincere. The speaker believes
that this would be worse that to have him hate his lover, and
ultimately decides that true love is mutual love.

6. ANNOTATION
 Mythology imagery:
 “god of love” (l.2,18)
 “god” (l.5,8)
 “godhead” (l.9)
 “modern god” (l.15)
 “Jove” (l.16)
 “ungod” (l.20)
 Uses this imagery to emphasize his powerlessness
 The gods are controlling and facilitating this distorted view of love
that the ideal is to pursue someone that is unattainable
 Mentions Jove who was the king of the Roman gods to demonstrate
the far-reaching power that the new view of love has gained

7. ANNOTATION (CONT.)
 Angry/melancholy diction
 “died” (l.2)
 “sunk so low” (l.4)
 “scorn” (l.4)
 “vice-nature” (l.6)
 “to rage, to lust” (l.17)
 “tyranny” (l.19)
 “rebel and atheist” (l.22)
 “deeper plague” (l.25)
 “hate” (l.27)
 Purpose is to underscore the speaker’s unhappiness that love is no longer
viewed as mutual love but that the ideal is chasing the unattainable
 Interesting that there is no blatant melancholy diction in Stanza 2 when
he talks about mutual love thus reiterating his advocacy for mutual love

8. ANNOTATION (CONT.)
 Inverted sentence structure
 “But even when an even flame two hearts did touch” (l.10)
 “Correspondency/ Only his subject was” (ll.12-13)
 “Sure, they which made him god meant not so much” (l.8)
 “why murmur I/ As though I felt the worst that Love could do?” (ll.22 -
23)
 “I must lover her that loves not me” (l.7)
 Backwardness of the lines could mirror the backward view of love
that love’s goal is not to be mutual, but rather its goal is to drive one
lover to chase the unattainable one

9. ANNOTATION (CONT.)
 Repetition:
 Repeats final line of each stanza in a slightly altered way
 Precedes each final line with an assertion with a being verb
 “lets it be” (l.6)
 “It cannot be” (l.13)
 “It could not be” (l.20)
 “that must be” (l.27)
 He asserts a slightly different idea each time he repeats these lines
 His first stanza stresses that this new way of viewing love makes him love
someone that does not love him back
 His second stanza suggests that it is impossible to have any other love but
mutual love
 His third stanza expresses his disappointment in his growing realization that
mutual love is a far-gone concept
 His fourth stanza cedes to the fact that love of the unattainable is a form of
true love as well
 These differences reflect his progression in admitting that loving
someone who does not love back is possible and can be true

10. ANNOTATION (CONT.)
 Contrasts
 “Correspondency” (l.12) vs. “Tyranny” (l.19)