The Broken Heart is an excellent example of Donnes style in his metaphysical mode,

transforming a relatively simple idea (that love destroys the hearts that feel it) into an obli!e,
elaborate meditation f!ll of startling images (the b!rning po"der#flask, love as a carnivoro!s
fish) and implications$ %tr!ct!rally, the poem looks at its theme from a different angle in each of
its stan&as$
The speaker has a broken heart$ He says that it is l!dicro!s to arg!e that someone cant fall o!t of
love !ickly, altho!gh he himself has felt the plag!e of a broken heart for a year$ ' broken heart
is an over"helming grief$ (n a single blo", his beloved shattered his heart$ )o", like a broken
mirror, the many pieces of his heart can reflect minor feelings s!ch as adoration, b!t his breast
*can love no more$
()
The first stan&a is metaphorical and explanatory, establishing the basic idea of the poem by
sho"ing that to be in love for an entire ho!r "o!ld be like having the plag!e for a year or seeing
a flask of g!npo"der b!rn for an entire day+ love is instant, like the explosion of the flask$
The poet begins "ith the strong statement that anyone "ho disagrees "ith his arg!ment abo!t
love is *stark mad (line ,)$ The *mad vie" is that love cannot "ane !ickly even tho!gh it can
be sparked !ickly$ The poet, in contrast, claims that anyone "ho has been in love even an ho!r
cannot help b!t notice ho" m!ch more !ickly love can t!rn to pain and loss$ The proper thing is
to kno" that a person cannot really have the plag!e for a year, !nless he means the plag!e of love
-and that a flash of g!npo"der cannot last for a "hole day$ The s!ggestion here is that the
poets heart has b!rned for a year "hile his beloveds attentions b!rned a"ay in merely a
moment$
The speaker declares that any man "ho claims he has been in love for an ho!r is insane+ not
beca!se love *decays in so short a time, b!t beca!se, in an ho!r, love can *devo!r ten men-in
other "ords, not beca!se love itself is destroyed in an ho!r, b!t beca!se it "ill destroy the lover
in m!ch less time than that$ To explain himself, the speaker !ses an analogy. He says that anyone
"ho heard him claim to have had the plag!e for an entire year "o!ld disbelieve him beca!se the
plag!e "o!ld have killed him in m!ch less time than that$ He also says that anyone "ho heard
him claim to have seen a flask of g!npo"der b!rn for an entire day "o!ld la!gh at him beca!se
the flask "o!ld have exploded immediately$ /ike the plag!e and the po"der#flask, love "orks
violently and s"iftly$
(()
The second stan&a personifies love as a kind of monster that destroys h!man beings, trifling "ith
hearts, s"allo"ing men "hole (he *never cha"s), killing "hole ranks, and devo!ring men as a
pike devo!rs smaller fish (*He is the tyrant pike, o!r hearts the fry)$
The second stan&a moves to the all#cons!ming nat!re of love (like b!rning !p, as hinted at the
end of the first stan&a)$ The poet compares love to *other griefs (line ,,), th!s characteri&ing the
longing of love pains as negative$ 0ther griefs allo" other sorro"s to coexist "ithin the s!fferer
(lines ,,#,1), b!t love does not$ 'lso, these other griefs are fig!red as happening to people-they
come to !s thro!gh the co!rse of living-"hereas love *dra"s !s to itself (line ,2)$ (n line ,3
Donne !ses personification to make love a *he, a devo!ring monster "ho *s"allo"s !s and
never cha"s (line ,3)$ /ove is a "arlike destroyer, like cannonballs (ghi!lele) connected by a
chain (*chaind shot, line ,4) that kill entire ro"s of enemy soldiers, or like the large fish (a
pike) that s"allo"s massive n!mbers of small#fry fish (line ,5)$ (n these images, the lover has
little or no agency (rol), totally cons!med by love$
*6hat a trifle is a heart, the speaker says, *(f once into /oves hands it come7 8nlike love,
other feelings and *other griefs do not demand the entire heart, only a part of it$ 0ther griefs
*come to !s b!t /ove dra"s !s to it, s"allo"ing !s "hole$ 9asses of people are felled by /ove
as ranks of soldiers are felled by chain#shot$ /ove is like a h!ngry pike (peste rapitor), and o!r
hearts are like the small fish he eats$#fry# small fish
((()
(n the third stan&a, the speaker departs from the general and enters the specific, addressing his
beloved and recalling the moment "hen love destroyed his heart, enabling him to !nderstand that
"hich he no" "rites in his poem+ the instant he sa" his beloved, love shattered his heart like
glass$
The third stan&a becomes more personal, addressing the one "ho broke his heart$ He describes
"alking into a room and seeing someone "ith "hom he fell in love at first sight$ (n the conceit in
"hich a heart represents love, he arg!es that he lost his heart to the beloved, b!t not beca!se it
"as taken !p by the beloved$ That is, the beloved "o!ld have sho"n him pity as the lover, b!t
instead she shattered it in a single blo", demonstrating that she did not love him in ret!rn$
'ddressing his beloved, the speaker asks her a !estion. (f "hat he says abo!t love is false,
then "hat happened to his heart the first time he sa" her: He says that he entered the room "ith a
heart, and left the room "itho!t one$ (f his heart had been capt!red "hole by his beloved, he says,
it "o!ld have ta!ght her to treat him more kindly+ instead, the impact of love shattered his heart
*as glass$
(;)
The final stan&a offers a kind of moral for the poem, (*nothing can to nothing fall, < )or any place
be empty !ite) detailing "hat happens to a heart after it has been shattered by the force of love$
The heart remains, the speaker claims, in the breast, like pieces of a broken mirror, able to reflect
lesser emotions, s!ch as hope and affection, b!t never again to love$
Th!s, the final stan&a considers the pieces of this broken heart$ %ince *nothing can to nothing
fall (line 14), his hearts pieces have not simply disappeared+ he no" carries *Those pieces still
in his breast (lines 1=#1>)$ The fragments are like a broken mirror, reflecting a *h!ndred lesser
faces (line 2?), as tho!gh he still has feelings for his beloved$ @et, his heart can only feel lesser
emotions no" that it is in pieces$ (t can *like, "ish, and adore, b!t it can *love no more (lines
2,#21)$ His heart has become irreparably damaged *after one s!ch love, scarring him for life and
leaving his feelings metaphorically in rags, diminishing his capacity to ever love again$
%till, he says, a thing cannot be so !tterly destroyed that it becomes nothing+ the pieces of his
shattered heart are still in his breast$ (n the same "ay that a broken mirror reflects *a h!ndred
lesser faces, the speaker says that his *rags of heart can *like, "ish, and adore+ b!t after
experiencing the shock of *one s!ch love, they can never love again$
Aor this reason the poem seems p!rely sec!lar(m!ndane# l!mesc), considering the feelings of
romantic love and loss rather than spirit!al love$ Berhaps, ho"ever, "e might see in this poem a
divine complaint abo!t Cod giving his all, his only son, to sho" love to mankind, yet being
reDected$
$$$(t is remarkable for its !n!s!al conception of love-not many poets "o!ld compare love to
death by a violent disease-