There's been some debate in our house over the theme of this poem by Robert Browning. Can anyone offer an opinion? What is the motive for the apparent murder? Is it really a murder at all? Does the technical structure and imagery give clues?

Contrary to views of the gang of three - my wife & literary student daughters, I think this is not a murder at all, but a lament over a lost love. In any case its pretty strong stuff from 1836.

THE rain set early in to-night,
The sullen wind was soon awake,
It tore the elm-tops down for spite,
And did its worst to vex the lake:
I listen'd with heart fit to break.
When glided in Porphyria; straight
She shut the cold out and the storm,
And kneel'd and made the cheerless grate
Blaze up, and all the cottage warm;
Which done, she rose, and from her form
Withdrew the dripping cloak and shawl,
And laid her soil'd gloves by, untied
Her hat and let the damp hair fall,
And, last, she sat down by my side
And call'd me. When no voice replied,
She put my arm about her waist,
And made her smooth white shoulder bare,
And all her yellow hair displaced,
And, stooping, made my cheek lie there,
And spread, o'er all, her yellow hair,
Murmuring how she loved me—she
Too weak, for all her heart's endeavour,
To set its struggling passion free
From pride, and vainer ties dissever,
And give herself to me for ever.
But passion sometimes would prevail,
Nor could to-night's gay feast restrain
A sudden thought of one so pale
For love of her, and all in vain:
So, she was come through wind and rain.
Be sure I look'd up at her eyes
Happy and proud; at last I knew
Porphyria worshipp'd me; surprise
Made my heart swell, and still it grew
While I debated what to do.
That moment she was mine, mine, fair,
Perfectly pure and good: I found
A thing to do, and all her hair
In one long yellow string I wound
Three times her little throat around,
And strangled her. No pain felt she;
I am quite sure she felt no pain.
As a shut bud that holds a bee,
I warily oped her lids: again
Laugh'd the blue eyes without a stain.
And I untighten'd next the tress
About her neck; her cheek once more
Blush'd bright beneath my burning kiss:
I propp'd her head up as before,
Only, this time my shoulder bore
Her head, which droops upon it still:
The smiling rosy little head,
So glad it has its utmost will,
That all it scorn'd at once is fled,
And I, its love, am gain'd instead!
Porphyria's love: she guess'd not how
Her darling one wish would be heard.
And thus we sit together now,
And all night long we have not stirr'd,
And yet God has not said a word!

To me it's pretty clearly a murder - I think the motive lies in the line "That moment she was mine, mine, fair,
Perfectly pure and good"

To me it's to do with the Victorian idea of a pure perfect woman - someone destined to fall or have feet of clay. He has this one perfect moment, when he realises that she loves him - but she's about to despoil herself, he's worshipped her from afar (she's presumably above him in social stature) and she's about to give herself to him and thus prove herself unworthy.

He will never be this happy again - on the one hand he now has his perfect woman, on the other hand she's no longer perfect, she's shown herself to be carnal, willing to stoop to him. If he rejects her he will have nothing - if he accepts he'll only have a shell of the woman he loved.

So he acts to preserve this moment forever - to keep her poised on the impossible axis - surrendered but chaste.

<Added>

Porphyria is also the name for a group of illnesses which cause mental illness and madness (in the acute stage). So I think we can safely say that the narrator is mad.

I would agree with that, Flora.

It's bloody spooky isn't it Jem! I also love The Last Duchess (or is it My Last Duchess? I can never remember).

<Added>

My Last Duchess - the wonders of google.

Yes, it's murder. I don't see how you can read it as anything else, with all the detail of how he strangles her.

Like Flora I read it as that she's grander, or married, or something which has made her inaccessible: he reads it as her finally succumbing to him, and decides to make sure that she'll never go back.

Although you could read it - perhaps read against it - as a stalker poem - she doesn't, actually do any of those loverlike things...

And yes, deeply scary, like so many of his dramatic monologues. Wonderful stuff I only discovered recently, having spent my degree years pretending to be a tree.

Emma

Ooh. Recently studied this on my english degree course and loved it because it's so shocking.

For me, yes it's a murder and the reason/motive (this is just my opinion) is that:

- she is someone he can't have. This comes through in the imagery of the 'soiled gloves' (indicating her position in society blackened by her relationship with this man) and also in the lines 'she/Too weak, for all her heart's endeavour,/To set its struggling passion free/From pride, and vainer ties dissever,/And give herself to me for ever.' She can't give up her life to be with him yet she can't seem to stop herself from seeing him: 'passion sometimes would prevail,/Nor could to-night's gay feast restrain'. So because she still visits him (but won't leave her current situation to be with him always) he believes that she loves him as much as he does her and at this point 'That moment she was mine, mine, fair,/
Perfectly pure and good:' he believes that the only way to keep her forever is to do what he does - kill her - thereby preserving the moment, that perfect moment forever!

Is he deluded? Yes. In justifying his actions he says: "I am quite sure she felt no pain." and "she guess'd not how/Her darling one wish would be heard." as if to say 'this is what she wanted too.' but we'll never know because she never says a word.

So, yes for me, definately murder.

Katie x

I agree with everyone above.

But I'm curious. What made you think that it wasn't a murder? I am interested to know.

I haven't read this poem in years - since I was at Uni. I remember it creeped me out then and even when I saw the line coming, it still creeps me out now.

J

Three times her little throat around,
And strangled her.

This indicates murder, and as the others have said 'Porphyria' indicates madness - the Madness of George III.
However - And I untighten'd next the tress
About her neck; her cheek once more
Blush'd bright beneath my burning kiss
- might be construed as the life coming back into her.

<Added>

...implying a sado-masochistic love, where he has to subdue her first.

I propp'd her head up as before,

Difficult to read this as anything other than her being dead, though.

George III's porphyria came through the Stuart line - Mary Queen of Scots had it...

Emma

I think he's a deeply unreliable narrator - everything about her surrender, even her very presence in the room, could be hallucinated (since one of the symptoms of Porphyria is hallucinations).

But the narrator clearly knows on some level he's done something against nature and against God because of the last line, "And all night long we have not stirr'd,
And yet God has not said a word!"

Ie - he's committed an action that heaven OUGHT to be crying out against.

I see the line "And I untighten'd next the tress
About her neck; her cheek once more
Blush'd bright beneath my burning kiss:"
as describing the lividity that comes after strangulation, only the narrator chooses to interpret it as a blush because he's a nutjob seeing what he wants to see.

Like Jenn though, I'm curious to know what made you think it wasn't a murder - I'm completely open to an alternative reading!

I agree with everyone that this is a clear description of murder, rather than anything else. I would disagree, though, about the suggestion that she must be someone he considers out of reach. Even I can remember a time when some men would completely lose their respect for any woman who was willing to sleep with them without being married to them. (A school friend of mine once voiced just such an opinion, while we were at school.) I agree with FloraPost's analysis, but I think his motivation for killing her is based on this pending loss of respect, rather than on her being of a different social class.

I agree that he must be suffering from some kind of mental illness. Firstly, the act of killing someone he loves implies a severe disconnection from reality, and secondly, his belief that she felt nothing while being strangled implies an inability to perceive reality. (A person being strangled would struggle quite violently, at least for a few seconds, so it's difficult to see how a sane person would fail to realise their suffering.)

Alex

Alex I agree with your point about the loss of respect from any kind of sexual acquiescence outside marriage - my assumption about the social status was based on the lines;

"To set its struggling passion free
From pride, and vainer ties dissever,"

The fact that she has to overcome her "pride" and "vainer ties" in order to be with him implies that she considers herself above him in some way, or that there are societal pressures keeping them apart.

But I agree, there are lots of ways of reading it - particularly when it's filtered through such a disturbed narrator - you could make an equal case that what he has interpreted as pride is in fact distaste, and the whole "surrender" is in his head.

I think the reference to pride and vainer ties could just be talking about the morals of the day - i.e. the pride that most women would have taken in remaining chaste before marriage. I don't think it's necessary to invoke any other source of pride than this, or any other "vainer ties" than her family (i.e. their likely reaction to her having committed fornication).

But I also agree that, given the clearly disturbed mind of the narrator, her entire state of mind could be completely different to what he thinks it is. Maybe he is the one making overtures, and her paleness is down to dread or disgust.

I love this post. Thanks for posting Punaburra. Flora - love your description of the narrator as a "nutjob".

Maybe he is murdering his temptation, ridding himself of it. Not literally murdering.