r
The
MendingWall: A Case of Misleading Simplicity
Mark Dewyea
English 2604
Dr. Welch
2/28/r0
2
Unearthing the true meaning of Robert Frost's Mending Wall requires adherence to the enduring
adage: 'T.{ever judge a book by its cover." This mindset prevents the apparent simplicity of the poem from
misleading the reader. Considering the speaker's lack of perception and ironic self-contradiction, the
possible underestimation of his neighbor's reasoning, and the ambiguous attitude Frost himself conveys
suggest the audience should conscientiously avoid accepting the poem at face value. Despite the alluring
temptation to accept the persona's apparent hatred of walls, Mending Wall intricately presents two
contradicting opinions regarding man's necessity for barriers. The paradoxical nature of the poem lies in
the fact that both views prove true. The neighbor realizes man simply cannot coexist peacefully without
the limitations of boundaries regulating interaction. The speaker voices mankind's inherent detestation
the restraints imposed by walls and the satisfaction derived from their destruction.
of
EXXffrn"
?
argument deliberately unsettled to acknowledge the coexistence of these views. This indiffArdnt
juxtaposition creates the ironic disparity between the poem's apparently straightforward meaning and the
subtler understanding that neither view prevails in reality (Barry, 110).
In Mending Wall, arock barricade divides the narrator's apple orchard from his neighbor's pineladen propeny. The majority of the blank verse poem represents the speaker's intemal monologue
contemplating the opposing view between himself and his neighbor regarding the need for walls. Every
spring the speaker seeks out his neighbor to repair the wall separating their properties. The speaker
apparently considers the wall unnecessary, as neither individual owns cows that could intrude on the
other's land. He additionally observes: "Something there is that doesn't love a wall". The neighbor refutes
his argument, simply saying, "Good fences make good neighbors". At the conclusion of the poem, the
speaker judges his neighbor as a primitive "savage", unwilling to question his inherited principles
of
times past in light of the persona's supposedly superior, enlightened views. When the narrator voices his
doubts concerning walls, the neighbor merely repeats: "Good fences make good neighbors". The poem's
I
N#,n r, o*
Tr**
structure consists of four distinct sections. In the initial section (lines 1-11), the speaker reflects on the
l
two culprits of the annual destruction of the wall: nature and humanity. An explanation of the ritual
I
I
repairing of the barrier conducted each spring follows (lines 12-30). In this section the narrator questions
the necessity of the wall only to be met with the neighbor's opposing axiom. The next section (lines
I
3l-
41) reveals the speaker's intemal reasoning why he considers walls useless. The concluding section of the
poem follows (lines 42-5I), in which he passes judgment on his neighbor's seemingly outdated attitude.
Frost uses syntax effectively to maintain tonal tension in the opening lines in order to foreshadow
the tension between the neighbor and the speaker and the incongruous appearance of the depleted wall.
His initial trochaic substitution in place of aniamb, "Something" in line one and "under" in line 2,
.onnurffih" unrhymed
vvrrucrlr/i'w
pentametSd rrr@Jvrrry
t.,.;L
sru'J'rwu iambic
r@r'urw Pw'r.'rwlw*w
majority vr
adheres to
. tr. This
of the
urv lruv'r
rv (Faggen,
\r o65wrr, 31).
foem ou'vrwD
hfr{f^
variation in rhythm reflects the similar incongruity of the wall before repaired by the neighborsrFrost's
continual variation of the traditional iambic pentameter emphasizes key words (such as "Something"),
straining against the natural rhythm. The language deviates from an iambic pattern, as evidenced by the
?T.*r.h
,;-Air^Jtr*,
"l
3
breaks in the feet found in the second and third lines that divide the words among more than one foot
(Faggen, 32.) This aspect creates an underlying tonal tension, emphasizing the poem's contradictory
views. These scarce deviations contrast sharply to the remainder of the poem. The general adherence to
iambic pentameter gives the poem a methodically deliberate tone that reinforces the "rock by rock"
process of mending the wall. Charles Bernstein recognizes Frost's ability to use the tone of his language u^ tr" ol-sr-
to correspond to his poem's content: "Mending
voice that breaks the vemacular over its lines,
l(all
is a fascinating fabrication, a metricalized, colloquial
as theme synthesizes sound"
(Bernstein, I34-I35).
The opening section (lines 1-11) of the poem begins with the understatement: "Something there is
o'something" not in favor of walls. He
that doesn't love a wall." The speaker identifies nature as the first
observes how the 'ofrozen-ground-swell" of the earth under the wall "spills the upper boulders in the sun".
The "frozen-gtound-swell" could be interpreted as frost, coincidently the author's last name. As the frost
in the poem destroys walls, this phrase implies that the poet likewise favored their removal. The remark in
line four describing the gaps made by nature's deterioration of the wall suggests that its removal increases
unity and fellowship between individuals by making: "gaps even two can pass abreast".
The speaker's early opposition to walls creates the dramatic ironv of thedrt3mr:);videnced by
Marie Borroff s reaction to the poem, the reader naturally gravitates towards the'narrator's view: "The
speaker is in sympathy with the force working form within the ground which 'doesn't love a
wall'; this
attitude is also the poet's, and the reader is invited to share in it" (Borrotr, 39). The poem's 'simplistic'
appearance is deceptive. The two central characters seem to present themselves as clear foils, each
lr",^/
h-dL"*^,
of universal
with
I
negating views. According to the persona's inconlusive vie*ythe wall's symbolization
separation evidently violates the laws ofnature. The speak6r appears to be rational, and therefore
attractive to readers, in his arguments (Coulthard, 42). This rationality, however, falters over the course
of
the poem. As literary critic John Barry points out: "The total effect of the poem is, ironically, more
thoughtful and subtle, more true to human experience" (Barry, 111).
The speaker proceeds to identiff humanity as the second "something" opposing walls. He
explains that hunters have destroyed the wall in their pursuit of rabbits, leaving "not one stone on a
stone". Lines 5-l
I include the first instances of the speaker's
self-contradiction andpuzzlement. He says
he has followed after the hunters and o'made repair" of the wall. This contradicts his
initial apparent
opposition to it, represented by his opening statement. Why maintain the wall if he truly believes it to be
an unnatural impediment to unity or fellowship between people?
Lines 10-11 question the validity of his argument that bolh man and nature oppose walls: "No one
has seen them [the gaps] made or heard them
made.'
fniJffi#the
t\'
speaker's claim that nature and
humanity oppose walls presents a mere personal assumptior; not factual evidence. The speaker never
precisely identifies the "Something" that does not love walls-
Hi; uncertainty contrasts notably with the
thisffilf
imply that true understanding of walls
apparently direct assertion: "something there
is..."
eludes the speaker's rational attempts to provide an expllnation (Barry, 110). The deliberate lack
of
4
clarity in the word "something" reflects an invitation by Frost for the reader to personally consider
it is that does not love
a
oowhat
wall". As Judith Oster explains: "A poem can be an invitation, we may get
invited in and challenged to play the game, but we are not assured of a perfect score", which holds
especially true in Mending Wall (Osteql9).
The speaker's reference to
tunt".i@iilffi},
his lack of certainty regarding the need for
o'another"
walls. His diction implies this interpretation: "The work of hunters is another thing". The words
and
"thing" appear distinctly ambiguous. The speaker presumably means that the hunter's actions are an
additional force that intrinsically recognizes the negativity of walls and wants to eradicate them (Watson,
654). His word choice implies he has little understanding of the argument he attempts to make. He fails to
recognize too the differences that nature compared to humanity visits on the wall. While nature only
upsets the "upper boulders in the sun", humanity
"left not one stone on a stone". Nature leaves the wall
somewhat intact, yet man completely destroys it. This provides a counterargument to the narrator's
assumption that nature rejects the concept of walls. AVparentlynature favors the preservation of walls to a
certain extent, but not to the point that they completely inhibit unity. Mankind, on the other hand,
seemingly hates all walls and favors their complete destruction.
The persona ironically fails to perceive that his description of the hunters resembles his
relationship with his neighbor and reinforces the latter's axiom: "Good fences make good neighbors". The
hunters' destruction of the wall in an attempt to draw out rabbits parallels, interestingly, the speaker's
opposition to its existence. The']elping dogs" may compare to the speaker's incurable urge to force his
friendship on his neighbor, who apparently shares no interest in interacting with him. Indeed, the speaker
felt he had to "let...[his] neighbor know behind the hilP' when it was time to mend the wall (Watson,
655). This situation supports the neighbor's implication that the ability of walls to prevent interaction
may not always be negative: they can protect privacy and individualism from unwanted intruders.
Reinforcing this point, William Ward says that:
Mending Wall expresses the concern that in a world which doesn't seem to love a wall
the individual may somehow get lost. Despite the obvious war appeal of the good
neighborliness that wants walls down, walls are nonetheless the essential barriers that
must exist between man and man if the individual is to preserve his own soul, and mutual
understanding and respect are to survive and flourish. (Ward, 428)
The speaker remains apparently unaware that his neighbor may not wish to interact with him beyond the
task of repairing the wall. He wishes to impose his view about walls on his neighbor ("put a notion in his
head"-line 32), much as the world attempts to impose views different from our own. The neighbor
realizes that without limitations (i.e. walls), outside forces would destroy the sense of individualism that
gives us identity. The nature of hunting reinforces the destruction of the individual. When the hunters
seek out the rabbit from hiding they do so with the intention to
neighbor in an attempt to
"kill"
kill. Likewise, the speaker draws out his
the neighbor's individuality by forcing his opinion on him.
j,,a
5
The speaker fails to recognize his own innate fondness for sheltering himself from the outside
world. He originally regards the act of the hunters to "have the rabbit out of hiding" with a negative tone,
since the resulting destruction of the wall means additional work for him. The argument here lies not
against the morality of walls, but against the constant efforts required to maintain them. He unknowingly
supports this conclusion in line 22 where he describes the tremendous exertion of mending the wall: "We
wear our fingers rough with handling them". Ironically, he unconsciously performs the same act as the
hunters against his neighbor. He draws his neighbor out of hiding only to laboriously mend the wall.
The second section of the poem (lines 12-30) describing the mending process continues to reflect
the ironic contradiction of the speaker's seemingly negative view of walls. In line
neighbor know beyond the
hill", clearly establishing that
the speaker take the initiative to maintain the wall
if
l3
he says:
"I
let my
he initiates the mending of the wall. Why would
he did not believe in it? The mending brings the
neighbors partly together, as described in line 14: "we meet to walk the line". But the wall still separates
them while they perform the chore: "We keep the wall between us as we go". They never truly come
together, which leads to the question whether this practice really exhibits a "mending-time", as suggested
in line 12. The purpose of their meeting serves only to
o'set
the wall between us once again".It seems to
instead represent a deterioration of the neighborly relationship
if viewed from the speaker's standpoint
opposing walls. Emphasizing the sense of separation is the repetition of "the wall between us" in lines 15
and 16. From the neighbor's view, ironically, the mending of the wall proves essential in maintaining
their relationship. Since "Good fences make good neighbors" the maintenance of the wall truly
"mending-time" of their relationship
.
/
ffir3
{f,)
Line 17 emphasizes the separation of the two individuals while performing the repairs: "To each
the boulders that have fallen to each". The speaker explains that they only pick up and replace the stones
found on their respective sides of the wall, therefore the process does not reflect
a
truly collaborative
effort. Each individual bears his own burden without the help of the other. The stones vary in size,
as
indicated in the metaphor in line 18: "Some are loaves and some so nearly balls". The wall prevents
cooperation, which would surely expedite the laborious task that leads the neighbors to: "Wear our fingers
rough with handling them."
saying
{
that he and the neighbor have to use a "spell" to keep them in place long enough until "their backs are
* H
The speaker suggests that the very stones comprising the wall resist their role as a barrier,
turned". This implies that the rocks themselves naturally oppose their role in walls, and only an unnatural
"spell" can hold them in place. Once again the speaker seems to argue that nature inherently
1
' ''l'\* n ..
opposes u 4"{
walls. The remalk, "Stay where you are until our backs are turnedj' identifies the wall as much of a
the *fi
rocks will fall after they depart, this doesn't matter as long as they do not witness the wall's deterioration
-:::#-" -. \"?
psychological separation as it is a physical one. Although the
'"'/#
,p#",
ffi'.#ftHl ;;"',.##;''il;- ff#
e
and the neighbor know that
;#;;"
* ;*#
:
,'*
*fi
t"t4
^, *.^
'J\4".{l/}"
o
rry' \ I hd**'b/'
hljrA
r
r[1rrr.nr.#,
'
f"; r(-
.r"r.*" t-
The description of the r4ending process as.4n "outdoor game" (line 23) with "one [neighbor] on a
side" again emphasizes th8-if
$pkfr'fud|e!,1#ffithe
mending process represents a form
?
of
competition between the two. Since ealh bears his own burden in mending the wall, "To each [go] the
boulders that have fallen to each." This description emphasizes the 'competing' opinions eachpeighbor
holds. The speaker's assumption that the process 'ocomes to little more"
(line 24) presents#tak)
understatement. The neighbors' contrasting views on walls carry profound meaning about the overall
ffi3 t**&-- -
-\'
power and morality of separation prevalent in human society.
u!,u.f,.a*r
The second section concludes with the speaker's seemingly rational argument against the need for
a
")
wall: "My apple trees will never get across and eat the cones under his pines". This statement
emphasizes not only the physical separation of the neighboring properties, but also the separation between
perspectives. Although the speaker's apparent rationality here may suggest that he is especially wise, the
neighbor remains unconvinced, replying simply: "Good fences make good neighbors".
The third section of the poem (lines 31-41) consists of the speaker's introspective consideration
of walls. In line 31 he says: "Spring is the mischief in me". This phrase connotes two main ideas: the first
a revelation in the speaker's own character, and the second a connection to Robert Frost's goal as a poet.
The speaker continually regards walls as unnatural, aligning his wish to eradicate them with nature's
7-ru
apparentlysimilarattemptsattheirdestruction.Whenthespeakersay,ttrat1ffi L,UN
me," he attempts to reinforce that alignment, as A.R. Coulthard suggests: "Like all true sons of nature, the lt^.*.-]q
speaker loves spring and under its inspiration wishes to instruct his winter minded neighbor"
(Coulthard,
t"*'T
^
e{"^q
4l). This apparent harmony with nature contributes to the reader's temptation to side with the
misleadingly perceptive speaker. While his intentions to enlighten his neighbor may initially appear
@*w"
noble, his inner dialogue reveals smugness and conceit. He only thinl<s about attempting to persuade
his
T*
neighbor to re-consider his opinion. He never verbally poses the rational argument that neither of them
own cows that need to be contained by a wall. Instead he thinks to himself: 'ol'd rather he said it for
himself. The persona has no reason to keep his neighbor uninformed other than to maintain what he
perceives as intellectually superior. He prefers to revel in his apparent wisdom, spouting condescending
maxims that do nothing but prove his own lack of insincerity towards his neighbor: "Before I built a wall
I'd
ask to know / What I was walling in or walling out" (Coulthard,
4l).
Because he did not
consider , q, d,
li(/-\
his
these questions before he voluntarily initiated the wall's repair, this statement ironically contradicts
earlier actions. He caps his obnoxious display of sophistication with the pun in line 38 in "offense" and
fence". This casual humor regarding such a serious matter casts doubt
t'lo
O
I
"{
whether the speaker truly
harbors a passionate moral objection to walls.
/" [4^
The "mischief' alluded to in line 31 reflects also Frost's aim for the poem and his own
-ambiguous consideration of walls. When asked by Leonidas Payne whether in
Y]grdllUjryAl Frost
had
fulfilled his intention "with the characters portrayed and the atmosphere of the place", he replied: "I
should be sorry
if
a single one
of my poems stopped with either of those things, stopped anywhere in fact.
7
My poems are all
set to
trip the reader head foremost into the boundless...my innate mischievousness"
(Faggen, 42).Payne explains his perception of Frost's work:
"A
meanings, not just on a first or second reading, but permanently,
a place where
reader who does not
will not
'trip' over the
be propelled into the boundless,
it is not reassuring to be but which is our true and real destination in Frost's work" (Faggen,
43). Mending Wall propels the reader into the o'boundless" by presenting the paradoxical coexistence
of
two contradicting views regarding walls. The ironic appearance that the poem opposes walls presents one
side of the reality. It remains in "deadlock" with the neighbors' contrasting views, as Frost observed:
"Poetry is neither the force nor the check. It is the tremor of the deadlock" (Faggen, 69). He was not
attempting to prove one view superior to the other. Instead, he was aware of how the two opinions both
proved true in reality. He reinforced this view in a 1915 interview: "One disposition in life is cell walls
breaking and cell walls making. Health is a period called peace in the balance between the two" (Faggen,
67). Frost does not make this distinction evident in the poem, preferring the readers to form their own
perception of the poem's meaning. Frost openly acknowledges his poem's ambiguity:
"I played exactly
fair in it. Twice I say 'Good fences make good neighbors' and twice 'Something there is that doesn't love
a
wall"' (Coulthard, 42)
In the concluding section of Mending Wall (lines 42-51\the speaker judges his neighbor. In line
44 he describes the neighbor as "an old-stone savage armed". This simile contradicts the speaker's earlier
appearance of harmony with nature. His blatantly prejudiced remark emphasizes the same intolerant
disposition of modem society. The speaker essentially constructs a mental wall separating himself from
his neighbor based on his assumed intellectual superiority. He presumes that the neighbor adheres to the
principles of an outdated era, refusing to conform to the speaker's seemingly enlightened view. The
speaker's resentment toward what he cannot understand shows his lack of tolerance, and undermines his
credibility. Such self-contradiction appears in the persona's words when in lines 49-51 he repeats his
neighbor's old adage and thereby implies that he has given the matter no thought, but only-rep-,eats
father's maxim (watson, 655). what
th@tt"plt"#;in
*t*nu"r
his ly-,2-,1t .+^n
actually
contemplated the matter and arrived at the speaker's conclusion on his own (Watson, 655). This verbal
irony filther underminer
th"tffiii"uting
his conceited perspective.
In lines 46-47 the speaker again exhibits intolerance toward his neighbor: "He moves in darkness
as
it seems to me / Not of woods only and the shade of trees". The persona acknowledges that his
neighbor's apparently benighted opinion does not lie in literal darkness, but instead remains clouded in
his mind. His failure to find any rationality behind this stance leads him to assume that his neighbor
unquestionably accepted the words of his father: "He
will not go behind his father's saying / And
he likes
having though of it so well". This judgment proves, however, to underestimate the neighbor's intellect.
The reference to him as "an old-stone savage" could be an allusion by Frost, acknowledging cultural
wisdom from the Paleolithic times as Peter Clarke explains,
r
Every year the proprietors between whose lands the holy objects lay used to meet at or
near them and offer sacrifice again. When such precautions were duly observed,
neighbors might hope that no quarrels would arise between them, and presumably that the
mere stones which were put there to mark out the boundary line would be kept in order
by their fellows (Clarke, 49)
This passage suggests that the neighbor actually possesses legitimate insight regarding the nature of walls.
There may be no need to "go behind" or to question a practice that has worked for thousands of years.
The phrase "father's saying" can be interpreted beyond the biological sense to allude to God, or
divine transcendence. This interpretation emphasizes alternatively the neighbor's religious faith
opposed to blind adherence to an old saying. Biblical support
as
forthe maintenance of walls exists in
Deuteronomy 19:14: "A curse on him who removeth his neighbor's landmark' (Clarke, 49). This passage
may help explain the neighbor's stubbom adherence to his father's adage as a divine commandment.
These allusions to ancient and biblical practices support the neighbor's opinion and sheds light on the
speaker's lack of wisdom. As Robert Faggen says: "Those regarded as low, untutored or rustic may bear
seductively a subversive from of insight, if not wisdom" (Clarke, 70).
Mending Wall implies that neither neighbors' viewpoint can
be
justified as superior. In the poem
Frost successfully emphasizes that no viable conclusion for an age-old problem can be reached, as Louis
Untermeyer explains: "The contradiction is the heart of the poem. It answers itself in the paradox
of
people, in neighbors and competitors, in the contradictory nature of man" (Untermeyer,94).
(-r*-u;-q"-t,
uot\ '*f'1d,
6'""t- e^!*ftt arw"Q*n^
Y*,* ,r,c.lt*'*0-;*J,. Q?,IA d- wt^-^f"-r^ffi-\
,i
t$d,,4
{,9
TJ* {c*<<,a-d^
%-t^t*
fl*i-6
9
Works Cited
Barry, Elaine. Robert Frost (Literature & Life). New York: Ungar Pub Co, 1973.
Borroff, Marie. "Robert Frosfs New Testament: Language and the Poem." Modern Philosophy 69 (197t):
37-44.
Clarke, Peter B. "Frost's 'Mending Wall'." Explicator 43.1 (1984): 48-50.
Coulthard, A. R. "Frost's 'Mending Wall'.' Explicator 45.2 (1987):40-42.
Faggen, Robert. The Cambridge Introduction to Robert Frost (Cambridge Introductions to Literature).
New York Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Oster, Judith. Toward Robert Frost: The Reader and the Poet. Athens, Ga: University
of
Georgia Press,
1994.
Untermeyer, Louis . Robert Frost's Poems. New York: St. Martin's,2002.
Ward, William S. *Lifted Pot Lids and Unmended Walls." College English 27.5 (1966):428-29.
Watson, Charles N., Jr. "Frost's Wall: The View from the Other Side." New England Quarterly: 44.4
(1971):653-56.