“Promises Like Piecrust” by Christina Rossetti tells a narrative between a speaker and a loved one regarding the other's romantic attraction to the speaker. The title of the poem is taken from the expression "Promises are like a pie crust, they are made to be broken", equating the difficulty of keeping a promise to the fragility of the pie crust, something that breaks easily. The title captures, in essence, the recurring theme of this Rossetti poem, that promises, and perhaps people, are fragile and fleeting. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Rossetti structures the poem in an argumentative manner, acting as a plea to the recipient of the poem. The constant seven-syllable meter reflects the speaker's stable emotional and mental state as she presents her argument against her beloved, portraying the speaker as reasonable and free of emotion. The alternating rhyme (ABAB/CDCD) suggests a lack of reciprocity between the two parties, with neither being able to meet the other's needs in the relationship. This suggests a sense of hesitation in the speaker, who may not be as sure as she appears. The paradoxical opening line of the first stanza of “Promise me no promise” and the following line “So I promise you not; suggests that the speaker desires a no-commitment relationship between the two parties, with the speaker somehow finding security in the lack of security due to the lack of promises between them. The phrase "Let us both keep our freedoms" implies a great need for independence on the part of the speaker who does not want to be tied to the loved one, which is somewhat strange in the Victorian era where marriage for a woman was a gateway. towards financial security, the speaker could thus be interpreted as also freeing herself from her patriarchal bonds. Alternatively, this could also be read as the speaker releasing the beloved from possible commitment to her, suggesting a feeling of unworthiness or inferiority, which is supported by the phrase "free to go and free to go », with the repetition of the word free. further emphasizing the speaker's need for freedom from attachment, or freedom in general. The antithesis of "false" and "true" is colored by the prefix "never", the negation representing the inability of either party to be able to emotionally affect the other if the loved one takes into account of the speaker's earlier request in the first two. lines. Additionally, the "die" symbolizes chance, therefore the risk that must be taken to achieve a result in their relationship, with the word "unrolled" showing that the speaker is not willing to take that risk. The last two lines of the stanza begin to develop the theme of the unknowable past of both the speaker and her beloved, as the phrase "for I cannot know your past" suggests that the beloved might be harboring past secrets from the speaker. A common method of Rossetti would be her use of rhetorical questions, which she uses to envelop her poems with a sense of intrigue and mystery, an example of which would be in her poem "Winter: My Secret". Using a rhetorical question in the final line ("And of me, what can you know?") would produce a similar effect, prompting readers to speculate about answers that are not freely given. On the other hand, this could also be read as the speaker mocking the beloved, implying that he is unable to fully understand the speaker. The second stanza is a further development on the pastof the speaker and the beloved. An accusatory tone is emitted against the loved one from the first line, especially if we read the expression “so warm” as sarcastic. There is a trace of jealousy in the speaker in the phrase "warmer towards another", implicitly indicating that the beloved was more attentive and loving in a past relationship, hence her jealous disposition perhaps resulting from a lack of clarity about the fidelity of his beloved. However, the use of the word "may" adds a degree of speculation that the speaker's account of his beloved has passed, which could perhaps indicate some form of paranoia, stemming perhaps from be a feeling of insecurity on the part of the speaker. Rossetti seems to further intensify the speculative aspect in the stanza with the rhetorical question of "Who will show us if it was/So indeed in ancient times", indicating that the speaker herself does not know how past relationships took place. Structurally, the first and third lines of the stanza are almost identical with the same rhythm and caesura placement, forming a mutual connection between the speaker and loved one. Moreover. the antithesis of "you" and "I", as well as "hot" and "cold", can be inferred from the intrinsic and irreconcilable differences between the two, or from their current emotional disposition towards each other . Given the context, "sunlight" could be seen as a metaphor for a past relationship of the speaker, while "felt the sun" could be interpreted as the speaker being more passionate in the past than its “coldness” in the present. Apart from this, the repetition of "once having" is representative of the speaker's clear fixation on the past, indicating that the speaker is unable to move forward and is perhaps in a state of emotional emptiness, being thus unable to properly engage in a new relationship. A juxtaposition of past and present adds credence to the speaker's argument that both parties should not be involved in a relationship with each other, because implicitly their past relationships both ended even if they were apparently (according to the speaker) warmer and more loving. at the time. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that if they were to form a relationship with each other in their current state, it was bound to end in failure. The stanza ends with fading images, suggesting the inaccessibility of their relationship or the unpredictability of the future should they become involved in such a relationship. Critic Jens Kiefer provides an interesting insight into the use of metaphorical imagery in the stanza, stating: "Its strategy of representing the past as something that can only be reconstructed in the form of allusions therefore strangely resembles a attempt to distract from its actual reality. reason for refusing to enter into a romantic relationship: fear.” Alternatively, the use of allusion could be representative of the speaker clinging too fondly to the past, being unable to describe it in its entirety for fear of bringing old memories to the surface. The final stanza reintroduces the concept of promises and personal freedom, acting as a continuation of the theme of the first stanza. An antithesis between “you” and “I” echoes the previous stanza, implying a parallel structure. While the antithesis was previously used to describe their emotional states in their past relationships, here it serves as a warning from the speaker of the dangers should they "promise" each other, which is a euphemism for consequences of emotional commitment to each other. Engagement is actually very negative..