19 pages • 38 minutes read
To Be in Love
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
The Physiological Effects of Love
On the podcast in which she reads Brooks’s poem “To Be in Love,” Ada Limón mentions the work of science writer Florence Williams, who explored the physiological effects of love and heartbreak in her book Heartbreak: A Personal and Scientific Journey. While Brooks doesn’t narratively recount the intimacy of the partners in “To Be in Love,” through the speaker’s indications of emotion we can—as Limón points out—see their physical response to the absence of the lover by applying Williams’s theories.
In a February 2022 interview with National Public Radio, Williams explains that when a couple first falls in love, their bodies “co-regulate” (See: Further Reading & Resources). She says that “a lot of studies [show] that when you put a couple in a brain scanner and you give them a task, their brain waves actually sync up.” This co-regulation is expressed in Brooks’s poem when the speaker says that to be in love is “To look at the world / Through his eyes” (Lines 4-5), and that the couple “are tasting together / The winter, or a light spring weather” (Lines 10-11). The couple’s thoughts and experiences are synchronized.
However, Williams also notes that “when our partner leaves or sort of disappears,” we’re affected by stress hormones. In Brooks’s poem, we see the speaker anticipating the lover’s departure with a quickened “pulse” (Line 15) before he “[s]huts a door” (Line 18), suggesting a rise in their agitation. Elevated cortisol levels, Williams asserts, make “your nervous system suddenly feel[…] like it’s under threat because you’re alone.” In the poem, this sense of discombobulation is shown when the speaker describes their limbs feeling like “water” (Line 20) and they are imbued with a sense of “ghastly freedom” (Line 22).
In this state, the utmost desire is for the lover to return so equilibrium can be gained. This explains why the speaker is hesitant to “apprize” (Line 29) their relationship. They’re operating on a primal level of not wanting anything to permanently prevent the lover’s return. Williams notes that when a lover is absent, “physiologically, we feel unsafe, and might try to win the lover back to maintain a level of security.” This explains why Brooks’s speaker will do anything to preserve the “Column of Gold” (Line 31) of the relationship, actions which include not asserting their own desire for its clear definition. Triggered physiologically, they’ll snuff out their own declaration so as not to further threaten the relationship’s success.
It’s Not Love If You Can’t Be Honest
“To Be in Love” seems to be a love poem on its surface. Instead, it explores the prohibition against declaring one’s love and the speaker’s consequent dishonesty to themselves regarding the benefits of the relationship. Although the speaker claims the togetherness of the couple early in the poem, on close inspection, the reader can detect that their devotion is, in fact, one-sided. In their infatuation, the speaker is tenuous, wary, and unable to honestly express what they feel. To preserve their relationship, they’ll diminish the self.
At first, the reader might assume the couple is simpatico, regarding the beauty of birds, the clear “sky” (Line 7), and the “spring weather” (Line 11). But hidden in this generally positive description is the fact that the speaker is imposing their thoughts on the beloved. None of this unified connection is made by the lover himself. He does not speak. Instead, the speaker “ look[s] at things / Through his eyes” (Lines 4-5) and “knows he knows” (Line 8). However, he never confirms these connections because physically “he is not there” (Line 9).
There was once a physical relationship between the two, but even then, the speaker feels they must “touch [love] with a lighter hand” (Line 2). They believe they shouldn’t analyze the relationship for promise or push for greater commitment. They note their “pulse must not say / What must not be said” (Lines 15-16). The use of the phrase “must not” twice indicates a sense of the forbidden. Why is the speaker prohibited from revealing their feeling? Who has exacted the prohibition: the speaker or the lover? This isn’t clarified—but the use of the language brings these questions to the forefront, causing us to doubt the relationship’s solidity. As the male figure is consistently described as absent, one may wonder if the couple is in a clandestine relationship in which the partner is in control of their meetings.
The speaker cannot see the relationship for what it is—a dead end—which is shown by the imagined kiss that is not described as reciprocal: “[H]is mouth” (Line 25) is “to touch, to whisper on” (Line 26) but not to receive from. While the façade of mutual exchange might exist in the early parts of the poem, in the second half it’s only shown as memory or fantasy. The speaker defines the relationship as a “golden hurt” (Line 24) or a “Column of Gold” (Line 31). However, gold is also easily melted down. If the speaker were to “apprize” (Line 29) or evaluate the relationship, they fear it will become “commonest ash” (Line 32). Considering “when to declare” (Line 27) their love as “certain Death” (Line 28), the speaker knows the relationship wouldn’t last the confession. To speak is to betray the prohibition, but to stay silent is to betray the self. Either way, the speaker is not “in love” at all, only trapped in a lose-lose situation.
The Column of Gold and the Egyptian Myth of Osiris
In Egyptian architecture, the djed is a broad-based column that narrows as it rises toward a cap. It usually contains four parallel lines and may or may not be made out a gold. Golden amulets were often fashioned into this shape and were used to pay tribute to the god Osiris and symbolically referred to the strength of his spine. They were called columns of gold and became connected to the symbolism of stability and Osiris’s resurrection, much like the cross is symbolic of Christian faith and Jesus’s sacrifice. Brooks uses allusions to Egyptian mythology in other poems, most notably in Riot (1969), so it is possible the “Column of Gold” (Line 31) in “To Be In Love” may be a reference to the backbone of Osiris (See: Further Reading & Resources).
In the ancient myth, Osiris is trapped in a coffin by his brother Set, who attempts to gain power by eliminating his brother. Through a series of complications, the coffin is enclosed within a tree, which is then used as a pillar for a palace, and eventually retrieved by Osiris’s wife, Isis, after a quest. She resurrects Osiris, but Set again attacks him and dismembers his body. Isis tries to put him back together, but since one piece of his body is missing, Osiris cannot be resurrected on earth and becomes Lord of the Underworld instead.
The speaker, too, tries to put a dismembered lover back together during his absence. He is imagistically shown in parts within the poem: a “hand” (Line 12), “eyes” (Line 14), and “mouth” (Line 25). He is not whole or corporeal once the relationship is “[t]oo much to bear” (Line 13). He is like a ghost that the speaker cannot hold on to since their arms are “water” (Line 20). This lack of cohesion causes injury and suffering as the absence also halves the speaker.
In the Egyptian funerary text, The Book of the Dead, it was advised to put golden djeds on mummified bodies so that in the afterlife, their spine would be restored and they could walk again. They, therefore, symbolize the promise of resurrection, much as when the lover returns in the speaker’s memory and the resurrection of the relationship is attempted. In Egyptian iconography, references to Osiris’s demise were alluded to by saying that Set had “laid the djed on its side,” or tipped the pillar over, destroying stability. For the speaker to “declare” (Line 27) their feeling for the beloved figure means a “certain Death” (Line 28). The djed, or spine, of the relationship would disintegrate into “ash” (Line 32). In other words, to “apprize” (Line 29) the core of the relationship—or define its stability—would eliminate its preciousness, as indicated by its golden color, and cause it to “fall” (Line 31) apart. This correlates with the idea of murdering something significant, much as Set did to Osiris.
Unlock all 19 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
Related Titles
By Gwendolyn Brooks
