The Passionate Shepherd Essay

The three poems, “The Passionate Shepherd to his Love,” “The Nymph’s Reply to the Shepherd,” and “Raleigh Was Right” speak about the same place, although in completely different perspective upon the world and nature. Firstly, Christopher Marlowe’s shepherd takes on a purely romantic view upon this world, believing that nature will provide for both the shepherd and his love. Secondly, Sir Walter Raleigh takes Marlowe’s idea and develops it into a more realistic approach upon nature, explaining how things never really last forever. Lastly, William Carlos Williams works off of both poems, further developing them to talk about a world in which nature cannot provide any protection against war. Altogether, these three poems talk about a world vastly different from one another, both of the latter poets working off Marlowe’s idea and changing it to meet their own viewpoint.
In Christopher Marlowe’s poem, “The Passionate Shepherd to
Williams writes the narrator as someone who is in the midst of war, describing this by saying ‘we cannot go into the country / for the country will bring us no peace’ (Williams, line 1 and 2). This means that Williams is suggesting that, even if the love went to live with the shepherd, all the ‘pleasures’ (Marlowe, line 2) he promised would mean nothing and that they cannot escape war simply by going to the country. Also, unlike Marlowe, Williams disbelieves in perfect world where nature can provide everything, as stated by ‘with flowering pockets and minds at ease / if ever this were true’ (Williams, line 12 and 13). Overall, Williams alters Raleigh’s poem to better suit an era currently going through the Second World War, and has the love believe almost in the exact opposite of nature as Marlowe’s