SONG: WHY SO PALE AND WAN, FOND LOVER?Sir John Suckling1609–1642

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 Sir John Suckling (10 February 1609 – 1 June 1642) was an

English poet and a prominent figure among those renowned for careless gaiety, wit, and all the accomplishments of a Cavalier poet (= a broad description of a school of English poets of the 17th century who came from the classes that supported King Charles I during the English Civil War).

Suckling was born at Whitton, in the parish of Twickenham, Middlesex, on February 10, 1609. His mother died when the boy was four years of age. His father, descendant of a prominent Norfolk family, was appointed Comptroller of James I's household in 1622. Suckling matriculated at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1623, but left without taking a degree three years later.

In 1628, he left London to travel in France and Italy, returning before the autumn of 1630, when he was knighted.

He joined the English soldiers serving in the army of Gustavus Adolphus during the Thirty Years' War.

He returned to the English court in May 1632, where he became very popular through his wealth and charm. He was known as a gamester, and is credited with having invented the game of cribbage.

In fact, Suckling was so passionately devoted to cards that he would frequently spend the whole morning in bed with a pack before him, studying the subtleties of his favorite games. He was considered not only the most skillful card-player, but also the best bowler in England. He travelled the country playing cribbage with the gentry, and managed to win around £20,000, an amount equivalent to about £4 million in today’s money.

In 1634, a great scandal was caused in his old circle by a beating which he received at the hands of Sir John Digby, a rival suitor for the hand of the daughter of Sir John Willoughby.

In 1639, Suckling recruited and equipped cavalry to help King Charles I in his first Scottish war. He was ridiculed in London for the troops' scarlet uniforms and plumed hats, but he was well-favored by the King.

In May 1641, Suckling took an active part in the royalist plot to rescue Strafford, who had attempted to strengthen the royal position against Parliament from the Tower. When Parliament ordered him to account for his movements, Suckling fled to Paris. He died in Paris a few months later, in 1642, either from suicide by poison, or, as another story tells, by the hand of a servant who placed a razor in his boot.

His play, Aglaura, was published in 1638 and performed twice for Charles I. The play had two different endings, one tragic and one happy. It was not a critical success, but it introduced the wonderful lyric poem Why So Pale and Wan, Fond Lover.

In the same year, Suckling's comedy The Goblins was published. It was much influenced by Shakespeare's The Tempest and is generally thought to be Suckling's best.        

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2

Suckling treated poetry casually, as a pastime, never committing himself to a serious study of literature. He never attached himself to any school of poetry in particular. While his friend, Carew, was a disciple of Jonson, Suckling wrote disparagingly of Jonson. He was more inclined in the direction of Donne's style, with its elaborate metaphors and explosive passion. Suckling's poetry lacks depth of feeling—indeed, he seems to have prided himself on its absence.

Why so pale and wan, // fond lover? a

Prithee, // why so pale? b

Will, // when looking well can’t move her, a

Looking ill prevail? b

Prithee, // why so pale? b

Why so dull and mute, // young sinner? a

Prithee, // why so mute? c

Will, // when speaking well can’t win her, a

Saying nothing do’t? c

Prithee, // why so mute? c

Quit, // quit, // for shame; // this will not move, d

This cannot take her. a

If of herself she will not love, d

Nothing can make her: a

The devil take her! a

Fond] foolishPrithee] please, may I ask

ANALYSIS 1

The poem features in one of Suckling’s plays—namely “Aglaura”—as a song sung by an anti-

Platonic lord who deems it “a little foolish counsel,” given to one of his friends “when he was falling into a consumption” as a result of

unrequited love.

The THEME of the poem is related to the concept of unrequited love, with the speaker concluding that blind devotion to one’s love interest despite

blatant rejection is foolish.The first two stanzas of the poem feature a bitter and sarcastic

TONE that is, nonetheless, solicitous, the speaker evincing concern for the decline in the young man’s health and spirits. As

readers move on to the last stanza, sarcasm is elided into exasperation, as evidenced by the initial spondaic inversion in

line 11, as well as the three caesurae in the same line: the former lends itself to the portrayal of frustration, and the repetition of the

word “quit” (line 11) illustrates the fact that the speaker will brook no further comment from the besotted young man; the latter, especially the third caesura, grants an impression of

finality—the speaker seems to imply that he has already made a decision for the hapless lover, and it does not bode well for his

relationship with his love interest. The poem is largely composed of trochees, which create a sense of

forceful exasperation, implying that the speaker is overly keen to get his point across. The number of metrical feet per line, however, is

uneven, which might mirror the addressee’s confusion with regard to his love interest; alternatively, the prevalence of catalexis might hint at the lack of comprehension on the young man’s part, as he cannot perceive the futility of his continued affection for the lady. As for the

rhyme scheme, it features identical rhymes that extend throughout all three stanzas—for example, the word “her” in lines 3, 8, 12, 14, and

15; this is conspicuously repetitive, perhaps implying that the addressee’s behavior has likewise become tedious and predictable

due to his infatuation. All lines in the poem are end-stopped, implying that the speaker’s friend is trapped, languishing in unrequited love

with minimal inclination to move on.

Although improbable, homosexual undertones may be ascribed to the poem, especially when

one considers the unaccountable interest of the speaker in the young man’s welfare, as well as in his love life. Moreover, the angry

outburst apparent in the last line of the poem appears to be not only excessive but also

unprovoked—the lady in question is unlikely to have ever interacted with the speaker.

ANALYSIS 2

The rhetorical questions present throughout the poem serve a double purpose: firstly, they represent the speaker’s attempt

at venting while trying to persuade the young man of the impracticality of his approach to romance; secondly, they

emphasize the disadvantages of the predicament in which the addressee finds himself, namely that his emotional distress

has begun to take a toll on him, making him “pale” (line 2) and presumably unattractive, and that his garrulity has deserted

him, making his company dull.

The word “prithee” (lines 2, 5, 7, and 10) is unnecessarily formal, belying the speaker’s

mounting frustration with his friend; alternatively, it may take on a mocking meaning, as though the

speaker were taunting the young man with his newly acquired defects, which, in the speaker’s

opinion, are self-imposed.

The frequent caesurae give the poem an abrupt feel, as though the speaker’s eloquence has fled with the advent of anger. They likewise give the impression that the speaker’s

arguments are spur-of-the-moment, concocted in an effusion of frustration to force his friend to acknowledge the truth of

the situation at hand. Moreover, as a result of their prevalence, the speaker’s objections are given more weight

than they would normally possess.

Why so pale and wan, // fond lover? a

Prithee, // why so pale? b

Will, // when looking well can’t move her, a

Looking ill prevail? b

Prithee, // why so pale? b

Why so dull and mute, // young sinner? a

Prithee, // why so mute? c

Will, // when speaking well can’t win her, a

Saying nothing do’t? c

Prithee, // why so mute? c

Quit, // quit, // for shame; // this will not move, d

This cannot take her. a

If of herself she will not love, d

Nothing can make her: a

The devil take her! a

The word “nothing” (line 14), as well as all of the other negations apparent throughout the poem, implies that the young lover’s

attempts at winning the lady of his choice are doomed to

fruitlessness, his situation being hopeless.

The speaker’s focus on his friend abruptly changes to the lady in the third stanza. In fact, his whole attitude seems to undergo a

metamorphosis: instead of continuing to blame the young man for his own plight, he starts railing against the lady, presumably in an

attempt to bolster his friend’s confidence; indeed, the speaker’s poor opinion of the woman could not be more apparent—the phrase “The

devil take her!” (line 15) is an outright imprecation.